The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So...anyone following the news, especially Sky, CNN and Fox, will probably have noticed that there's major hints that a conflict with Iraq, led by a US/UK led force, is becoming a distinct possibility.
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Page:
Just wanted to add a couple of points to the discussion.
First the idea that the US/UK axis would only use nuclear weapons as retailiation is now sadly wrong. The US, in plans endorsed by Donald Rumsfeld, is now considering the use of nuclear weapons against targets that can withstand conventional attack, or in the light of 'surprising military developments'. Judging by Blair's current spineless approach to US will, the chances of British opposition are slim. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4371623,00.html
for details on this. This is probably the most frightening development in international affairs since the end of the cold war: nothing is more likely to make those countries on an American hit-list develop and use whatever weapons would give them a little bargaining power. The message it sends to civilians is also likely to create a new generation of terrorists.
Second, why of all the middle-eastern dictatorships choose Saddam Hussein as a pariah. No one denies he is a horrible despot, but his contemporaries in the region run regimes just as undemocratic and barbaric. Oil, perhaps? And if it is his desire to invade neighbours and destabilise the region that is the problem, then why not take the prime offender, Israel, to task on the issue. The invasion of Kuwait was settled by the Gulf War (and the punitive years of bombing campaigns); Israel, on the other hand, still occupies Palestinian land (in violation of UN resolutions) and regularly kills civilians in an attempt to impose its rule. It seems that only America's enemies are bound by international law!
First the idea that the US/UK axis would only use nuclear weapons as retailiation is now sadly wrong. The US, in plans endorsed by Donald Rumsfeld, is now considering the use of nuclear weapons against targets that can withstand conventional attack, or in the light of 'surprising military developments'. Judging by Blair's current spineless approach to US will, the chances of British opposition are slim. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4371623,00.html
for details on this. This is probably the most frightening development in international affairs since the end of the cold war: nothing is more likely to make those countries on an American hit-list develop and use whatever weapons would give them a little bargaining power. The message it sends to civilians is also likely to create a new generation of terrorists.
Second, why of all the middle-eastern dictatorships choose Saddam Hussein as a pariah. No one denies he is a horrible despot, but his contemporaries in the region run regimes just as undemocratic and barbaric. Oil, perhaps? And if it is his desire to invade neighbours and destabilise the region that is the problem, then why not take the prime offender, Israel, to task on the issue. The invasion of Kuwait was settled by the Gulf War (and the punitive years of bombing campaigns); Israel, on the other hand, still occupies Palestinian land (in violation of UN resolutions) and regularly kills civilians in an attempt to impose its rule. It seems that only America's enemies are bound by international law!
Small Frog wrote:
>The Cuban Missile crisis anyone? JF Kennedy managed to prevent WW3
> because he negotiated with Kruschev. Remember?
Er bribery actually. A deal was made to remove US missiles in Europe some months after in exchange for immediate removal of the missiles. The US had blockaded Cuba already meaning no ships could enter or exit the island, and the soviets new Strategic Air Commmand had a fully loaded bomber group just waiting for Le May (The then commander of SAC) to give the word. Sure, such a strike would have led to WW3, but the bottom line is that the Soviets new that Cuba would go up in smoke before they could od a thing about it. Since that time, two books, "Spetznatz" and "Red Thrust" by former Russians indicate that the Soviet generals were concerned that Russia could not win any engagement in Europe. They could take Germany, but Nato would fall back to the borders and major river crossings - trading space for time, then counter attack. The Americans, in the 60s, obviously couldn't have known this. The point - negotiations backed by the threat of ultimate force - as the US tried in Afghanistan prior to Enduring Freedom, one month and no give from the Taliban. Force achieved what negotiations could not, the same in Iraq during hte Gulf War.
>The resaon I bring this up is because America made a huge fuss
> over the people who were killed in the Trade Center, but are completely willing
> to kill any number of innocent enemy civilians.
Wrong again. Enduring Freedom is not targeting civlians, civilains are collateral damage - not targets. 9/11 clearly targeted civilians on purpose. The terrorists are willing to kill civilians, not the US or her allies. On the many times I've been t Mildenhall air show (US air base down south), where real pilots are there to talk to the public freely, the over riding impression you get is that they absolutely dread hitting civilians. Obviously I've only talked with a small number, one a B2 pilot, and he reckoned on numerous times during the Gulf War he'd not dropped because of civilians. Weapons can go off target however, and when your enemy is prepared to locate in close proximity to those civilians -which he himself doesnt care about - then deaths are going to happen.
>Yes, but it
> was US armed forces that actually killed them. There are more covert ways to
> attack enemy installations than simply to blow them from the face of planet,
> surely?
Why are they there ? Because of the Taliban and one Man and his followers. They killed nearly 3000 innocent people in the worst act seen this century or any other. If he believed the US would sit back and take that then more fool him. I was entirely surprised not see Kabul going up in a nuclear cloud within a week of the attack.... I'm not saying it would be right but committing this act was a moronic idea. There are more covert ways, but they don't work and risk more lives, and lead to far higher death tolls on both sides - large scale special ops missions would have been impossible in such a rugged and once enemy held territory, and the risk of capture high. The Americans actually care about their soldiers you see, where as we forget what they do. The only other way would have been invasion, and there you would have seen massive civilian casualties from naval bombardment, CAS attacks, crossfires e.t.c. The air campaign has been relatively surgical, and has worked. The Taliban are a dying force, and Al Queda with them. Thats why the time is right to hunt every last terrorist and terrorist supporting nation down. Everyone wants piece, but are they prepared to fight for it ? If not then the terrorists and nations like Iraq will win in the long term.
>I would point out that all your 'information' has been taken
> from American web-sites like CNN. Don't you think it's possible that they might
> have a slight bias?
The report of the missing airman held for 11 years (possibly) was aired first on the BBC, who aklso hold copies of all the information I have quoted. As the BBCs record number of viewer complaints in the 4th quarter of 2001 shows, this station is not known for PRO USA views. Therefore its unlikely to be biased. The information is widely available if you look for it, and stories like Speicher's are undeniable - a story you seem to have skirted around !
(Please note that I'm not arguing at you - we both have our own views - I just want to put my point of view across, so dont take anything I say personally ! :) )
>The Cuban Missile crisis anyone? JF Kennedy managed to prevent WW3
> because he negotiated with Kruschev. Remember?
Er bribery actually. A deal was made to remove US missiles in Europe some months after in exchange for immediate removal of the missiles. The US had blockaded Cuba already meaning no ships could enter or exit the island, and the soviets new Strategic Air Commmand had a fully loaded bomber group just waiting for Le May (The then commander of SAC) to give the word. Sure, such a strike would have led to WW3, but the bottom line is that the Soviets new that Cuba would go up in smoke before they could od a thing about it. Since that time, two books, "Spetznatz" and "Red Thrust" by former Russians indicate that the Soviet generals were concerned that Russia could not win any engagement in Europe. They could take Germany, but Nato would fall back to the borders and major river crossings - trading space for time, then counter attack. The Americans, in the 60s, obviously couldn't have known this. The point - negotiations backed by the threat of ultimate force - as the US tried in Afghanistan prior to Enduring Freedom, one month and no give from the Taliban. Force achieved what negotiations could not, the same in Iraq during hte Gulf War.
>The resaon I bring this up is because America made a huge fuss
> over the people who were killed in the Trade Center, but are completely willing
> to kill any number of innocent enemy civilians.
Wrong again. Enduring Freedom is not targeting civlians, civilains are collateral damage - not targets. 9/11 clearly targeted civilians on purpose. The terrorists are willing to kill civilians, not the US or her allies. On the many times I've been t Mildenhall air show (US air base down south), where real pilots are there to talk to the public freely, the over riding impression you get is that they absolutely dread hitting civilians. Obviously I've only talked with a small number, one a B2 pilot, and he reckoned on numerous times during the Gulf War he'd not dropped because of civilians. Weapons can go off target however, and when your enemy is prepared to locate in close proximity to those civilians -which he himself doesnt care about - then deaths are going to happen.
>Yes, but it
> was US armed forces that actually killed them. There are more covert ways to
> attack enemy installations than simply to blow them from the face of planet,
> surely?
Why are they there ? Because of the Taliban and one Man and his followers. They killed nearly 3000 innocent people in the worst act seen this century or any other. If he believed the US would sit back and take that then more fool him. I was entirely surprised not see Kabul going up in a nuclear cloud within a week of the attack.... I'm not saying it would be right but committing this act was a moronic idea. There are more covert ways, but they don't work and risk more lives, and lead to far higher death tolls on both sides - large scale special ops missions would have been impossible in such a rugged and once enemy held territory, and the risk of capture high. The Americans actually care about their soldiers you see, where as we forget what they do. The only other way would have been invasion, and there you would have seen massive civilian casualties from naval bombardment, CAS attacks, crossfires e.t.c. The air campaign has been relatively surgical, and has worked. The Taliban are a dying force, and Al Queda with them. Thats why the time is right to hunt every last terrorist and terrorist supporting nation down. Everyone wants piece, but are they prepared to fight for it ? If not then the terrorists and nations like Iraq will win in the long term.
>I would point out that all your 'information' has been taken
> from American web-sites like CNN. Don't you think it's possible that they might
> have a slight bias?
The report of the missing airman held for 11 years (possibly) was aired first on the BBC, who aklso hold copies of all the information I have quoted. As the BBCs record number of viewer complaints in the 4th quarter of 2001 shows, this station is not known for PRO USA views. Therefore its unlikely to be biased. The information is widely available if you look for it, and stories like Speicher's are undeniable - a story you seem to have skirted around !
(Please note that I'm not arguing at you - we both have our own views - I just want to put my point of view across, so dont take anything I say personally ! :) )
Belldandy wrote:
> It was on CNN that the rumour about Saddam having cancer
Its commendable saying that violence gets a country no
> where but history proves that wrong. Can anyone name a time hwen war was averted
> by negotiation ? I don't know any..... negotiations buy time and little
> else.
The Cuban Missile crisis anyone? JF Kennedy managed to prevent WW3 because he negotiated with Kruschev. Remember?
Regarding WW2, again small frog's not telling the whole story.
> Roosevelt wanted to enter the war but feared that an isolationist opposition and
> a reluctant public could make that political suicide. Even so they provided
> ammo, spare parts and a squadron of air craft as well as use of overseas
> diplomatic embassies. They also fed intelligence to us and offered to help
> extract Churchill and his war cabinet in the event of German invasion, which
> Churchill refused. There are several books, including OPJB by Christopher
> Chreighton, that suggest Chruchill and Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbour was going to
> be attacked 24 hours before, but they knew that Americahad to be attacked to
> gain the support Roosevlet needed to enter the war.
Okay, fair enough, I didn't know that.
And lastly, civilian
> casualties in Afghanistan. Firstly, numbers of 7 000 are only ball park figures
> with no verification, coming from a country that said it could hold back allied
> forces for years I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Yes, many civlians did die,
> that is for sure.
The resaon I bring this up is because America made a huge fuss over the people who were killed in the Trade Center, but are completely willing to kill any number of innocent enemy civilians.
Its conveniently forgotten by many with this argument that
> the Taliban were given 30 days, from September 12th, to hand over Bin Laden or
> face the consequences. Did they ? No, they didnt even try. THAT IS ABSOLUTE FACT
> ! They were so confident the US and her allies wouldn't beat them, nobody has
> stood against US forces since 1989 and won. Not to mention that US intel sources
> showed on live television on Fox that the Taliban were purposelly locating its
> HQs and other facilities in civilian areas. Again, that is undeniable fact.
> Every civilian death in Afghanistan is the fault of the Taliban.
Yes, but it was US armed forces that actually killed them. There are more covert ways to attack enemy installations than simply to blow them from the face of planet, surely?
Face it, Saddam isnt going to negotiate, he has the weapons in
> development, and most of these Anti US arguments here are foundedon facts that
> are at best, only partly true. Try backing up an argument with real info
> !
I would point out that all your 'information' has been taken from American web-sites like CNN. Don't you think it's possible that they might have a slight bias?
>Thank you (and my word count is really benefitting from this topic :) )
Heh. Mine too.
> It was on CNN that the rumour about Saddam having cancer
Its commendable saying that violence gets a country no
> where but history proves that wrong. Can anyone name a time hwen war was averted
> by negotiation ? I don't know any..... negotiations buy time and little
> else.
The Cuban Missile crisis anyone? JF Kennedy managed to prevent WW3 because he negotiated with Kruschev. Remember?
Regarding WW2, again small frog's not telling the whole story.
> Roosevelt wanted to enter the war but feared that an isolationist opposition and
> a reluctant public could make that political suicide. Even so they provided
> ammo, spare parts and a squadron of air craft as well as use of overseas
> diplomatic embassies. They also fed intelligence to us and offered to help
> extract Churchill and his war cabinet in the event of German invasion, which
> Churchill refused. There are several books, including OPJB by Christopher
> Chreighton, that suggest Chruchill and Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbour was going to
> be attacked 24 hours before, but they knew that Americahad to be attacked to
> gain the support Roosevlet needed to enter the war.
Okay, fair enough, I didn't know that.
And lastly, civilian
> casualties in Afghanistan. Firstly, numbers of 7 000 are only ball park figures
> with no verification, coming from a country that said it could hold back allied
> forces for years I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Yes, many civlians did die,
> that is for sure.
The resaon I bring this up is because America made a huge fuss over the people who were killed in the Trade Center, but are completely willing to kill any number of innocent enemy civilians.
Its conveniently forgotten by many with this argument that
> the Taliban were given 30 days, from September 12th, to hand over Bin Laden or
> face the consequences. Did they ? No, they didnt even try. THAT IS ABSOLUTE FACT
> ! They were so confident the US and her allies wouldn't beat them, nobody has
> stood against US forces since 1989 and won. Not to mention that US intel sources
> showed on live television on Fox that the Taliban were purposelly locating its
> HQs and other facilities in civilian areas. Again, that is undeniable fact.
> Every civilian death in Afghanistan is the fault of the Taliban.
Yes, but it was US armed forces that actually killed them. There are more covert ways to attack enemy installations than simply to blow them from the face of planet, surely?
Face it, Saddam isnt going to negotiate, he has the weapons in
> development, and most of these Anti US arguments here are foundedon facts that
> are at best, only partly true. Try backing up an argument with real info
> !
I would point out that all your 'information' has been taken from American web-sites like CNN. Don't you think it's possible that they might have a slight bias?
>Thank you (and my word count is really benefitting from this topic :) )
Heh. Mine too.
If anyones seen BBC news tonight you'll have seen another story that adds more reason to go into Iraq.
Lt. Cmdr. Michael Speicher was shot down in the opening stages of the Gulf War campaign and has been assumed KIA, last year the status changed to MIA. British Intel now says hes is alive and held in Baghdad, Iraq denies this and the Pentagon isn't responding in exact terms. Either way in 1995 an investigation of his crashed plane revealed he was not in the FA18 hornet when it went down in Iraq, and that he ejected safely. Either he's alive, or the Iraqi's killed him in cold blood all those years ago. The story's only breaking but initial US reaction is anger, and this is only going to add furhter fuel for an attack in May.
Leaving the politics of Iraq behind, if Iraq had any shred of decency they'd release details of what happened to him, but they won't and say it's "a silly lie" They claim never to have shot his aircraft down. They are lying, a they always do. This story could well be the thing to finally push public opinion all the way in the US, and hopefully in this country too.
Lt. Cmdr. Michael Speicher was shot down in the opening stages of the Gulf War campaign and has been assumed KIA, last year the status changed to MIA. British Intel now says hes is alive and held in Baghdad, Iraq denies this and the Pentagon isn't responding in exact terms. Either way in 1995 an investigation of his crashed plane revealed he was not in the FA18 hornet when it went down in Iraq, and that he ejected safely. Either he's alive, or the Iraqi's killed him in cold blood all those years ago. The story's only breaking but initial US reaction is anger, and this is only going to add furhter fuel for an attack in May.
Leaving the politics of Iraq behind, if Iraq had any shred of decency they'd release details of what happened to him, but they won't and say it's "a silly lie" They claim never to have shot his aircraft down. They are lying, a they always do. This story could well be the thing to finally push public opinion all the way in the US, and hopefully in this country too.
It was on CNN that the rumour about Saddam having cancer was planted by Iranian intelligence.
Small Frog is irght about just killing Saddam won't end this threat, which is why its a stated aim of the US to remove him and his support mechanism (read that as parts of the army and his ministers). Small Frog's wrong however on his facts concerning battlefield nukes - he seems stuck with the Cold War ones. These new weapons do not decimate large areas as he suggests but are targetted and contamination is minimal. I don't want to see them used. If he bothered to check he'd find that again, like the existing nukes, they are a retaliatory measure, not a first strike option. His comments about Bush are factually true, but he pulled from Kyoto to reduce dependability on the Middle East and Blair would do the smae in that position - when North Sea oil was discovered the UK was none to happy about sharing that either. Bush has increased military spending because it had been run down by successive administrations prior to the Gulf War - which stretched the US drastically. Its a stated aim that the US military should be able to fight two major wars, a regional conflict and smaller operations but at the time of the gulf war they reckoned they could fight in the Gulf and one regional conflict. Planes and vehicles take time to build, people take time to train, so the spending has to be carried over.
Its commendable saying that violence gets a country no where but history proves that wrong. Can anyone name a time hwen war was averted by negotiation ? I don't know any..... negotiations buy time and little else.
Regarding WW2, again small frog's not telling the whole story. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war but feared that an isolationist opposition and a reluctant public could make that political suicide. Even so they provided ammo, spare parts and a squadron of air craft as well as use of overseas diplomatic embassies. They also fed intelligence to us and offered to help extract Churchill and his war cabinet in the event of German invasion, which Churchill refused. There are several books, including OPJB by Christopher Chreighton, that suggest Chruchill and Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked 24 hours before, but they knew that Americahad to be attacked to gain the support Roosevlet needed to enter the war.
And lastly, civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Firstly, numbers of 7 000 are only ball park figures with no verification, coming from a country that said it could hold back allied forces for years I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Yes, many civlians did die, that is for sure.
Its conveniently forgotten by many with this argument that the Taliban were given 30 days, from September 12th, to hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Did they ? No, they didnt even try. THAT IS ABSOLUTE FACT ! They were so confident the US and her allies wouldn't beat them, nobody has stood against US forces since 1989 and won. Not to mention that US intel sources showed on live television on Fox that the Taliban were purposelly locating its HQs and other facilities in civilian areas. Again, that is undeniable fact. Every civilian death in Afghanistan is the fault of the Taliban. US victory has led to a new government who at leasts gives women some rights and people more freedom, and they're going to try that popular thing called...democracy ? Is that so bad ? I dont think so. The US is targetting Anti US countries, only those actively threatening the West or allowing terrorists to reisde within their borders. CIA has nearly proved Saddam has links with Bin Laden, if there had been a nuke onboard one plane on 9/11 then the results would have been catastrophic.
Face it, Saddam isnt going to negotiate, he has the weapons in development, and most of these Anti US arguments here are foundedon facts that are at best, only partly true. Try backing up an argument with real info !
Thank you (and my word count is really benefitting from this topic :) )
Small Frog is irght about just killing Saddam won't end this threat, which is why its a stated aim of the US to remove him and his support mechanism (read that as parts of the army and his ministers). Small Frog's wrong however on his facts concerning battlefield nukes - he seems stuck with the Cold War ones. These new weapons do not decimate large areas as he suggests but are targetted and contamination is minimal. I don't want to see them used. If he bothered to check he'd find that again, like the existing nukes, they are a retaliatory measure, not a first strike option. His comments about Bush are factually true, but he pulled from Kyoto to reduce dependability on the Middle East and Blair would do the smae in that position - when North Sea oil was discovered the UK was none to happy about sharing that either. Bush has increased military spending because it had been run down by successive administrations prior to the Gulf War - which stretched the US drastically. Its a stated aim that the US military should be able to fight two major wars, a regional conflict and smaller operations but at the time of the gulf war they reckoned they could fight in the Gulf and one regional conflict. Planes and vehicles take time to build, people take time to train, so the spending has to be carried over.
Its commendable saying that violence gets a country no where but history proves that wrong. Can anyone name a time hwen war was averted by negotiation ? I don't know any..... negotiations buy time and little else.
Regarding WW2, again small frog's not telling the whole story. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war but feared that an isolationist opposition and a reluctant public could make that political suicide. Even so they provided ammo, spare parts and a squadron of air craft as well as use of overseas diplomatic embassies. They also fed intelligence to us and offered to help extract Churchill and his war cabinet in the event of German invasion, which Churchill refused. There are several books, including OPJB by Christopher Chreighton, that suggest Chruchill and Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked 24 hours before, but they knew that Americahad to be attacked to gain the support Roosevlet needed to enter the war.
And lastly, civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Firstly, numbers of 7 000 are only ball park figures with no verification, coming from a country that said it could hold back allied forces for years I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Yes, many civlians did die, that is for sure.
Its conveniently forgotten by many with this argument that the Taliban were given 30 days, from September 12th, to hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Did they ? No, they didnt even try. THAT IS ABSOLUTE FACT ! They were so confident the US and her allies wouldn't beat them, nobody has stood against US forces since 1989 and won. Not to mention that US intel sources showed on live television on Fox that the Taliban were purposelly locating its HQs and other facilities in civilian areas. Again, that is undeniable fact. Every civilian death in Afghanistan is the fault of the Taliban. US victory has led to a new government who at leasts gives women some rights and people more freedom, and they're going to try that popular thing called...democracy ? Is that so bad ? I dont think so. The US is targetting Anti US countries, only those actively threatening the West or allowing terrorists to reisde within their borders. CIA has nearly proved Saddam has links with Bin Laden, if there had been a nuke onboard one plane on 9/11 then the results would have been catastrophic.
Face it, Saddam isnt going to negotiate, he has the weapons in development, and most of these Anti US arguments here are foundedon facts that are at best, only partly true. Try backing up an argument with real info !
Thank you (and my word count is really benefitting from this topic :) )
mandatare wrote:
> But if suddan hussien has inoperable cancer then why do we need to risk
> thousands of lives just to kill him a couple of years early?
Wishful thinking I'm afraid, I doubt that if Saddam dies of cancer that will be the end to the crisis in Iraq. First of all if Saddam dies who's to say another more insane mad man doesn't take his place. We'll be right back to square one.
Another, perhaps more unlikely thing that could happen is if Saddam launches an all out attack on the West. He won't exactly have much to lose if hes going to die of cancer anyway. This really should have been sorted out when we where at war with Iraq, but unfortuantly has been left far too long. Going to war maybe the only thing that will finally end Saddams reign.
> But if suddan hussien has inoperable cancer then why do we need to risk
> thousands of lives just to kill him a couple of years early?
Wishful thinking I'm afraid, I doubt that if Saddam dies of cancer that will be the end to the crisis in Iraq. First of all if Saddam dies who's to say another more insane mad man doesn't take his place. We'll be right back to square one.
Another, perhaps more unlikely thing that could happen is if Saddam launches an all out attack on the West. He won't exactly have much to lose if hes going to die of cancer anyway. This really should have been sorted out when we where at war with Iraq, but unfortuantly has been left far too long. Going to war maybe the only thing that will finally end Saddams reign.
Belldandy wrote:
Go to www.fas.org and you'll find this info, from
> officially released papers. The UK has 200 operational warheads as of 2000 -
> verfied independently. Those American tests were not "in secret" -
> they were conducted on US federal property, in the desert and were not illegal,
> in so far as they only broke one trety stipulation with the USSR, who broke
> their treaties far more often !
So how does the West breaking treaties appease this? Two wrongs don't make a right. America has their history of backstabbing just as much as the USSR.
Rubbish ! We disarm and we're finished because
> natons like Iraq, Iran, Libya e.t.c. do not "disarm". You kinda have
> to have democracy for things like that...and a government that doesnt kill you
> for speaking out. Walk down Baghdad shouting "lets throw all our weapons
> away" and see how long that lasts.... He has ,ade threats, go look at CNN
> on a search, but they are not stronger because the weapons probably are not
> ready yet. Saddam currently offers a cash reward for shooting down any US/UK jet
> see;
http://abcnews.go.com /sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_990313.html (REMOVE
> THE SPACE)
>This is not a man thats going to submit to negotiation.
So we kill him. And that's it, is it? The moment he dies, one of his supporters will rise to take his place. Nothing is solved by further bloodshed. I agree with you completely in that this man is evil, but I don't think that bombing his country is going to solve anything.
>UN
> Inspectors will only see what any
> country wants them to see. Even good old
> merry England.
"Merry England" doesnt express a desire to invade
> neighbouring countries, kill civilians with nerve gas..or did you not know that
> the Kurdish people in Iraq have been attacked several times with nerve gas ? In
> short, the UN doesn't inspect us because we only go to war against those who
> attack first.
I understand that, but Tony Blair is willing to follow George Bush to the ends of the Earth in his desire to 'eliminate' terrorism. This is simply an excuse for him to cripple any anti-Western, anti-American country. The US, officially, is the most racist and the most bigoted country in the world. Bush has been quoted making anti-black comments. Couple this with the fact that this guy has his finger on more buttons than any other leader in history and we have a problem.
WAS the whole point. Its no the Cold
> War anymore and these are different times. The US locks these targets because
> they are locked on the US, even so this is not a threat, its a deterrant. Bush's
> desite to develop battlefield nuclear weapons is even more important, as they
> will be usable and a more effective deterrant - Iraq knows it will never be
> attacked by ICBM because of the massive collateral damage that attack would
> inflict. A battlefield nuke however.... therefore its more
> effective.
More effective...but still sick and excessive. Nukes ruin vast areas of land for hundreds of thousands of years - see Japan. I find it hard to stomach that you are willing to destroy areas of a country that is already in poverty - if Iraq ever does shake off it's dictators after a war, the country would be a wasteland, impossible to cultivate.
>My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy
> all
> the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However,
>
> this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or
> if
> we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we
> could set
> an example for other countries.
Agressive ? Nearly 3000 dead
> and massive damage to two locations is reason enough to want to hit Iraq and
> anyone who threatens the West.
I am sick of people going on about this. Yes, it was a horrific thing to happen, and Osama Bin Laden should be captured and executed, but - as far as I am concerned - the US killing over 7000 *CIVILIAN* Afghans makes them far worse than the terrorists. Regardless of whether or not they are 'missing the intended targets', America believes violence solves everything (i.e. Vietnam). The entire country is built on the culture of the good of the individual rather than the good of the many. America was pretty much asking to be attacked in some way - George Bush has done nothing but act confrontational since he came in to power. The moment he was elected, he increased military spending and pulled out of the Kyoto agreement - this wasn't justified and has angered millions of people. While I condemn the methods used, I can understand why sick and angry people struck a blow at a country who thinks they rule the world. I simply find it terrible that they thought they would be effective by killing innocents.
The only way Saddam's weapons will be destroyed
> is a Flight of B2's straight out of Michigan, and seeing as UN inspectors
> reported, before being thrown out, that the sites are in Iraqi civilian areas
> then the loss of life is going to be high.......because of Saddam. We should
> stay close to the USA because really they're the only friend we have - France
> has blocked UN resolutions againt Iraq.... for example - America is at least a
> friend we can trust and one we know will always support us when we need it.
This is not true. America is obsessed with it's own concerns, and not us. As far as I can see, we are simply an advanced warning post for the US. How do they 'always support us'? When have we ever called on them for help? They refused to join WW2 until their own country lost life in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> During the Falklands they did so, and during the Gulf War.
Yeah, but the only reason they did this was because their own country was at risk as well.
Yes, Bush is raising
> hell at the moment, but the problems were there long ago, it took so many deaths
> to finally make people realise that rogue states and terrorism needs sorting
> now. Not later, once there's been another devestating attack on one of our
> cities, but now.
I agree with you there. It does need stopping. What I have a major problem with is the number of innocents that die in the countries that we are bombing. Since 11/7, a substantially larger number of civilians have died in Afghanistan than were killed in the bombing of the Trade Center. I apologise if you disagree, but I can't see how this can be justified.
Most people forget too easily, it takes a news story to
> make them care again. In America Bush has massive 2:1 rating for expanding the
> war to any country that threatens the US and her allies, and I hope Tony Blair
> is right there with him. If no other country's want to help then fine, I'm sure
> the US/UK can do the job just fine - we basically ran Desert Storm between us
> anyway
Actually, it was pretty much the US doing Desert Storm. They think so, anyway. How many war films are made about Britain's contributions to these wars, compared to the number of films about small groups of 'True American Heroes'? As far as most American citizens are concerned, it was America that won the Gulf War. And only America.
Go to www.fas.org and you'll find this info, from
> officially released papers. The UK has 200 operational warheads as of 2000 -
> verfied independently. Those American tests were not "in secret" -
> they were conducted on US federal property, in the desert and were not illegal,
> in so far as they only broke one trety stipulation with the USSR, who broke
> their treaties far more often !
So how does the West breaking treaties appease this? Two wrongs don't make a right. America has their history of backstabbing just as much as the USSR.
Rubbish ! We disarm and we're finished because
> natons like Iraq, Iran, Libya e.t.c. do not "disarm". You kinda have
> to have democracy for things like that...and a government that doesnt kill you
> for speaking out. Walk down Baghdad shouting "lets throw all our weapons
> away" and see how long that lasts.... He has ,ade threats, go look at CNN
> on a search, but they are not stronger because the weapons probably are not
> ready yet. Saddam currently offers a cash reward for shooting down any US/UK jet
> see;
http://abcnews.go.com /sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_990313.html (REMOVE
> THE SPACE)
>This is not a man thats going to submit to negotiation.
So we kill him. And that's it, is it? The moment he dies, one of his supporters will rise to take his place. Nothing is solved by further bloodshed. I agree with you completely in that this man is evil, but I don't think that bombing his country is going to solve anything.
>UN
> Inspectors will only see what any
> country wants them to see. Even good old
> merry England.
"Merry England" doesnt express a desire to invade
> neighbouring countries, kill civilians with nerve gas..or did you not know that
> the Kurdish people in Iraq have been attacked several times with nerve gas ? In
> short, the UN doesn't inspect us because we only go to war against those who
> attack first.
I understand that, but Tony Blair is willing to follow George Bush to the ends of the Earth in his desire to 'eliminate' terrorism. This is simply an excuse for him to cripple any anti-Western, anti-American country. The US, officially, is the most racist and the most bigoted country in the world. Bush has been quoted making anti-black comments. Couple this with the fact that this guy has his finger on more buttons than any other leader in history and we have a problem.
WAS the whole point. Its no the Cold
> War anymore and these are different times. The US locks these targets because
> they are locked on the US, even so this is not a threat, its a deterrant. Bush's
> desite to develop battlefield nuclear weapons is even more important, as they
> will be usable and a more effective deterrant - Iraq knows it will never be
> attacked by ICBM because of the massive collateral damage that attack would
> inflict. A battlefield nuke however.... therefore its more
> effective.
More effective...but still sick and excessive. Nukes ruin vast areas of land for hundreds of thousands of years - see Japan. I find it hard to stomach that you are willing to destroy areas of a country that is already in poverty - if Iraq ever does shake off it's dictators after a war, the country would be a wasteland, impossible to cultivate.
>My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy
> all
> the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However,
>
> this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or
> if
> we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we
> could set
> an example for other countries.
Agressive ? Nearly 3000 dead
> and massive damage to two locations is reason enough to want to hit Iraq and
> anyone who threatens the West.
I am sick of people going on about this. Yes, it was a horrific thing to happen, and Osama Bin Laden should be captured and executed, but - as far as I am concerned - the US killing over 7000 *CIVILIAN* Afghans makes them far worse than the terrorists. Regardless of whether or not they are 'missing the intended targets', America believes violence solves everything (i.e. Vietnam). The entire country is built on the culture of the good of the individual rather than the good of the many. America was pretty much asking to be attacked in some way - George Bush has done nothing but act confrontational since he came in to power. The moment he was elected, he increased military spending and pulled out of the Kyoto agreement - this wasn't justified and has angered millions of people. While I condemn the methods used, I can understand why sick and angry people struck a blow at a country who thinks they rule the world. I simply find it terrible that they thought they would be effective by killing innocents.
The only way Saddam's weapons will be destroyed
> is a Flight of B2's straight out of Michigan, and seeing as UN inspectors
> reported, before being thrown out, that the sites are in Iraqi civilian areas
> then the loss of life is going to be high.......because of Saddam. We should
> stay close to the USA because really they're the only friend we have - France
> has blocked UN resolutions againt Iraq.... for example - America is at least a
> friend we can trust and one we know will always support us when we need it.
This is not true. America is obsessed with it's own concerns, and not us. As far as I can see, we are simply an advanced warning post for the US. How do they 'always support us'? When have we ever called on them for help? They refused to join WW2 until their own country lost life in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> During the Falklands they did so, and during the Gulf War.
Yeah, but the only reason they did this was because their own country was at risk as well.
Yes, Bush is raising
> hell at the moment, but the problems were there long ago, it took so many deaths
> to finally make people realise that rogue states and terrorism needs sorting
> now. Not later, once there's been another devestating attack on one of our
> cities, but now.
I agree with you there. It does need stopping. What I have a major problem with is the number of innocents that die in the countries that we are bombing. Since 11/7, a substantially larger number of civilians have died in Afghanistan than were killed in the bombing of the Trade Center. I apologise if you disagree, but I can't see how this can be justified.
Most people forget too easily, it takes a news story to
> make them care again. In America Bush has massive 2:1 rating for expanding the
> war to any country that threatens the US and her allies, and I hope Tony Blair
> is right there with him. If no other country's want to help then fine, I'm sure
> the US/UK can do the job just fine - we basically ran Desert Storm between us
> anyway
Actually, it was pretty much the US doing Desert Storm. They think so, anyway. How many war films are made about Britain's contributions to these wars, compared to the number of films about small groups of 'True American Heroes'? As far as most American citizens are concerned, it was America that won the Gulf War. And only America.
Small Frog wrote:
How do you know? Governments keep secrets from each other
> and from their own public. Do you know how many nuclear warheads this country
> possesses? I don't either.
And yes, we do hide in secrecy. It was recently
> revealed by an American newspaper that nuclear and biological weapons tests were
> being carried out by the American government illegally and in secret. That
> doesn't sound like being shrouded in secrecy. If we just trust what governments
> tell us to, we simply end up with another Watergate.
Go to www.fas.org and you'll find this info, from officially released papers. The UK has 200 operational warheads as of 2000 - verfied independently. Those American tests were not "in secret" - they were conducted on US federal property, in the desert and were not illegal, in so far as they only broke one trety stipulation with the USSR, who broke their treaties far more often !
>When did he do that, exactly? As far as I was aware, Saddam was simply
> refusing to allow UN inspectors to see his personal cache of weaponry. If he had
> threatened our country, we would have responded a lot more heavily than we did.
> I understand that our missiles are a deterrent, but if governments would agree
> to disarm, the problems would be solved.
Rubbish ! We disarm and we're finished because natons like Iraq, Iran, Libya e.t.c. do not "disarm". You kinda have to have democracy for things like that...and a government that doesnt kill you for speaking out. Walk down Baghdad shouting "lets throw all our weapons away" and see how long that lasts.... He has ,ade threats, go look at CNN on a search, but they are not stronger because the weapons probably are not ready yet. Saddam currently offers a cash reward for shooting down any US/UK jet see;
http://abcnews.go.com /sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_990313.html (REMOVE THE SPACE)
This is not a man thats going to submit to negotiation.
>UN Inspectors will only see what any
> country wants them to see. Even good old merry England.
"Merry England" doesnt express a desire to invade neighbouring countries, kill civilians with nerve gas..or did you not know that the Kurdish people in Iraq have been attacked several times with nerve gas ? In short, the UN doesn't inspect us because we only go to war against those who attack first.
Just one SCUD
> launched nuclear missile or
> germ loaded missile into Israel will send the
> region up in flames.
>Sorry, but they are. Since the 40s, the US has kept
> several of it's warheads locked on to strategic points in what used to be the
> Soviet Union and the Middle East. This is not a deterrent. This is an open
> threat by a country far bigger and richer that those it is targeting. That was
> the whole point in ICBMs.
WAS the whole point. Its no the Cold War anymore and these are different times. The US locks these targets because they are locked on the US, even so this is not a threat, its a deterrant. Bush's desite to develop battlefield nuclear weapons is even more important, as they will be usable and a more effective deterrant - Iraq knows it will never be attacked by ICBM because of the massive collateral damage that attack would inflict. A battlefield nuke however.... therefore its more effective.
>My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy
> all the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However,
> this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or if
> we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we could set
> an example for other countries.
Agressive ? Nearly 3000 dead and massive damage to two locations is reason enough to want to hit Iraq and anyone who threatens the West. The only way Saddam's weapons will be destroyed is a Flight of B2's straight out of Michigan, and seeing as UN inspectors reported, before being thrown out, that the sites are in Iraqi civilian areas then the loss of life is going to be high.......because of Saddam. We should stay close to the USA because really they're the only friend we have - France has blocked UN resolutions againt Iraq.... for example - America is at least a friend we can trust and one we know will always support us when we need it. During the Falklands they did so, and during the Gulf War. Yes, Bush is raising hell at the moment, but the problems were there long ago, it took so many deaths to finally make people realise that rogue states and terrorism needs sorting now. Not later, once there's been another devestating attack on one of our cities, but now.
Most people forget too easily, it takes a news story to make them care again. In America Bush has massive 2:1 rating for expanding the war to any country that threatens the US and her allies, and I hope Tony Blair is right there with him. If no other country's want to help then fine, I'm sure the US/UK can do the job just fine - we basically ran Desert Storm between us anyway !
How do you know? Governments keep secrets from each other
> and from their own public. Do you know how many nuclear warheads this country
> possesses? I don't either.
And yes, we do hide in secrecy. It was recently
> revealed by an American newspaper that nuclear and biological weapons tests were
> being carried out by the American government illegally and in secret. That
> doesn't sound like being shrouded in secrecy. If we just trust what governments
> tell us to, we simply end up with another Watergate.
Go to www.fas.org and you'll find this info, from officially released papers. The UK has 200 operational warheads as of 2000 - verfied independently. Those American tests were not "in secret" - they were conducted on US federal property, in the desert and were not illegal, in so far as they only broke one trety stipulation with the USSR, who broke their treaties far more often !
>When did he do that, exactly? As far as I was aware, Saddam was simply
> refusing to allow UN inspectors to see his personal cache of weaponry. If he had
> threatened our country, we would have responded a lot more heavily than we did.
> I understand that our missiles are a deterrent, but if governments would agree
> to disarm, the problems would be solved.
Rubbish ! We disarm and we're finished because natons like Iraq, Iran, Libya e.t.c. do not "disarm". You kinda have to have democracy for things like that...and a government that doesnt kill you for speaking out. Walk down Baghdad shouting "lets throw all our weapons away" and see how long that lasts.... He has ,ade threats, go look at CNN on a search, but they are not stronger because the weapons probably are not ready yet. Saddam currently offers a cash reward for shooting down any US/UK jet see;
http://abcnews.go.com /sections/world/DailyNews/iraq_990313.html (REMOVE THE SPACE)
This is not a man thats going to submit to negotiation.
>UN Inspectors will only see what any
> country wants them to see. Even good old merry England.
"Merry England" doesnt express a desire to invade neighbouring countries, kill civilians with nerve gas..or did you not know that the Kurdish people in Iraq have been attacked several times with nerve gas ? In short, the UN doesn't inspect us because we only go to war against those who attack first.
Just one SCUD
> launched nuclear missile or
> germ loaded missile into Israel will send the
> region up in flames.
>Sorry, but they are. Since the 40s, the US has kept
> several of it's warheads locked on to strategic points in what used to be the
> Soviet Union and the Middle East. This is not a deterrent. This is an open
> threat by a country far bigger and richer that those it is targeting. That was
> the whole point in ICBMs.
WAS the whole point. Its no the Cold War anymore and these are different times. The US locks these targets because they are locked on the US, even so this is not a threat, its a deterrant. Bush's desite to develop battlefield nuclear weapons is even more important, as they will be usable and a more effective deterrant - Iraq knows it will never be attacked by ICBM because of the massive collateral damage that attack would inflict. A battlefield nuke however.... therefore its more effective.
>My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy
> all the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However,
> this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or if
> we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we could set
> an example for other countries.
Agressive ? Nearly 3000 dead and massive damage to two locations is reason enough to want to hit Iraq and anyone who threatens the West. The only way Saddam's weapons will be destroyed is a Flight of B2's straight out of Michigan, and seeing as UN inspectors reported, before being thrown out, that the sites are in Iraqi civilian areas then the loss of life is going to be high.......because of Saddam. We should stay close to the USA because really they're the only friend we have - France has blocked UN resolutions againt Iraq.... for example - America is at least a friend we can trust and one we know will always support us when we need it. During the Falklands they did so, and during the Gulf War. Yes, Bush is raising hell at the moment, but the problems were there long ago, it took so many deaths to finally make people realise that rogue states and terrorism needs sorting now. Not later, once there's been another devestating attack on one of our cities, but now.
Most people forget too easily, it takes a news story to make them care again. In America Bush has massive 2:1 rating for expanding the war to any country that threatens the US and her allies, and I hope Tony Blair is right there with him. If no other country's want to help then fine, I'm sure the US/UK can do the job just fine - we basically ran Desert Storm between us anyway !
But if suddan hussien has inoperable cancer then why do we need to risk thousands of lives just to kill him a couple of years early?
Belldandy wrote:
> Small Frog wrote:
Can I just point out that we have
> our own nuclear
> weapons pointed at various countries around the world? We are
> just as much
> as fault as Saddam
Get you facts right ! Do we hide our weapons away from the
> UN ? No. Do we shroud in secrecy what we have ? No.
How do you know? Governments keep secrets from each other and from their own public. Do you know how many nuclear warheads this country possesses? I don't either.
And yes, we do hide in secrecy. It was recently revealed by an American newspaper that nuclear and biological weapons tests were being carried out by the American government illegally and in secret. That doesn't sound like being shrouded in secrecy. If we just trust what governments tell us to, we simply end up with another Watergate.
We have nuclear missiles
> launched from submarines whose location are secret. Are we threatening to use
> those againt a country that has done us no harm ? No. UK defence policy is that
> they are a nuclear deterrant. Someone attacks us with nuclear missiles then
> probably one of the last orders that will be given by the Prime Minister is to
> counter attack with that deterrant. Saddam is threatening to use his weapons
> against anyone unfriendly to Iraq.
When did he do that, exactly? As far as I was aware, Saddam was simply refusing to allow UN inspectors to see his personal cache of weaponry. If he had threatened our country, we would have responded a lot more heavily than we did. I understand that our missiles are a deterrent, but if governments would agree to disarm, the problems would be solved.
Of course, governments would never fully disarm. They would be too suspicious of each other to actually get rid of *all* their weapons. They would keep several, justifying it by saying "Well, he might still have some". UN Inspectors will only see what any country wants them to see. Even good old merry England.
Just one SCUD launched nuclear missile or
> germ loaded missile into Israel will send the region up in flames.
So no, we
> are not at fault. And just to prove another point, our nuclear weapons are not
> "pointed" as you put it. Yes, they can be brought into a mode whereby
> they actuively target a location but unless they are on a close to war footing
> the missiles are not aimed at anything. Submarines are deployed in most likely
> areas of conflict. Secondly, other countries have the UK as a target, but again
> this is a deterrant.
Sorry, but they are. Since the 40s, the US has kept several of it's warheads locked on to strategic points in what used to be the Soviet Union and the Middle East. This is not a deterrent. This is an open threat by a country far bigger and richer that those it is targeting. That was the whole point in ICBMs.
The way I see it,
> this problem is either sorted out soon or it will be a future generation we
> leave the problem to - we cant just stick our collective heads in the sand and
> ignore the problem - a skill that seems to be a growing national trait in this
> country.
Finally, something I agree with! The problem does need to be dealt with. The only question is how. My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy all the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However, this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or if we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we could set an example for other countries.
> Small Frog wrote:
Can I just point out that we have
> our own nuclear
> weapons pointed at various countries around the world? We are
> just as much
> as fault as Saddam
Get you facts right ! Do we hide our weapons away from the
> UN ? No. Do we shroud in secrecy what we have ? No.
How do you know? Governments keep secrets from each other and from their own public. Do you know how many nuclear warheads this country possesses? I don't either.
And yes, we do hide in secrecy. It was recently revealed by an American newspaper that nuclear and biological weapons tests were being carried out by the American government illegally and in secret. That doesn't sound like being shrouded in secrecy. If we just trust what governments tell us to, we simply end up with another Watergate.
We have nuclear missiles
> launched from submarines whose location are secret. Are we threatening to use
> those againt a country that has done us no harm ? No. UK defence policy is that
> they are a nuclear deterrant. Someone attacks us with nuclear missiles then
> probably one of the last orders that will be given by the Prime Minister is to
> counter attack with that deterrant. Saddam is threatening to use his weapons
> against anyone unfriendly to Iraq.
When did he do that, exactly? As far as I was aware, Saddam was simply refusing to allow UN inspectors to see his personal cache of weaponry. If he had threatened our country, we would have responded a lot more heavily than we did. I understand that our missiles are a deterrent, but if governments would agree to disarm, the problems would be solved.
Of course, governments would never fully disarm. They would be too suspicious of each other to actually get rid of *all* their weapons. They would keep several, justifying it by saying "Well, he might still have some". UN Inspectors will only see what any country wants them to see. Even good old merry England.
Just one SCUD launched nuclear missile or
> germ loaded missile into Israel will send the region up in flames.
So no, we
> are not at fault. And just to prove another point, our nuclear weapons are not
> "pointed" as you put it. Yes, they can be brought into a mode whereby
> they actuively target a location but unless they are on a close to war footing
> the missiles are not aimed at anything. Submarines are deployed in most likely
> areas of conflict. Secondly, other countries have the UK as a target, but again
> this is a deterrant.
Sorry, but they are. Since the 40s, the US has kept several of it's warheads locked on to strategic points in what used to be the Soviet Union and the Middle East. This is not a deterrent. This is an open threat by a country far bigger and richer that those it is targeting. That was the whole point in ICBMs.
The way I see it,
> this problem is either sorted out soon or it will be a future generation we
> leave the problem to - we cant just stick our collective heads in the sand and
> ignore the problem - a skill that seems to be a growing national trait in this
> country.
Finally, something I agree with! The problem does need to be dealt with. The only question is how. My personal hope is that we can somehow destroy all the nuclear weapons without any military action or loss of life. However, this will not happen as long as we have overly agressive leaders in the US or if we continue to let our leaders kiss George Bush's backside. Maybe we could set an example for other countries.
Page: