The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
April 2001; Watch the news and you'll see how Israel has in a matter of a week occupied massive urban areas in Palestinian occupied territories.
Spetember 2001; The attack on 9/11 against the USA marked the first attack by another nation on the American mainland and was previously thought impossible.
Spring 1999; Bosnia, Nato warplanes and bombers struggled to find the Serbian's who were killing so many.
October 2001; The largest air campaign since the Gulf War begin in Afghanistan from air craft carriers and long range bombers.
The days of massed armies clashing over a no mans land are gone. The Gulf War was the last time we will see legions of armoured tanks speeding across a battleground as foot troops follow closely behind. Welcome to the 21st century, and a new style of warfare.
World War 2 was the last clear cut conflict where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly visible. Only a minority of lunatics will argue that the Nazi threat was anything but evil and needed stopping. Korea and Vietnam followed and all of a sudden the bad guys disappeared because very few actually knew which side was which, and what they were even fighting for. The TV showed scenes reminiscent of Hollywood, and maybe that was the problem because the real deaths seen by viewers lost their meaning. Then came the Falklands and for once the sides reappeared. The Argentinians had taken our land and we had to get it back - simple. Then the Gulf War began in 1990 and the sides were lost. Despite the murder of Kuwaitis and dozens of hostages taekn by Iraqi troops a sentiment arose in some of the public that the West was the bad guy - despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Eastern countries endorsed Desert Storm. Every missed target and mistaken bombing of civilians mattered more than the atrocities Iraq was committing whilst the West argued with itself. Whilst the moral highground was discussed innocent people that could have been saved died.
Now, with terrorism doing what many have predicted for so long, rearing its ugly head, urban warfare is the future. The Battlefields are no longer going to be miles from home, but in the cities and towns of the West and across the internet. Why ?
The Gulf War sent two messages to woul;d-be invaders. Firstly, the West will always protect its friends no matter where they are. Secondly, engage the West in conventional warfare and you'll face annhilation, we an hit you faster, harder and with more firepower than you can imagine - make no mistake, you'll lose. The West had time to get its forces in place to repel Iraq, over 2 months.
Urban warfare is different and more effective for the new enemies that freedom loving nations face. Libya, Iraq, Iran and others, plus various terrorist groups internal and external, have masses of troops and supporters who will risk death to attack their enemies, whether they be civlians or not. Atacks can now cause financial as well as physical damage, and also cripple a country. Remember how the IRA brought the nation to a standstill years ago by placing bomb like packages on the motorways ? Four real explosives ( I think ) bought 4 days of chaos and crippled the road system. 9/11 triggered a wordlwide recession fear that could now be ocming true and resulted in many thousands losing employment, xmas retail sales dropped in many areas and tourism losses were massive, not to mention financial losses on the markets and in terms of real business, plus the crippling insurance payouts firms face. A small group of trained people can damage us more than any army could ever hope to.
Yet the way of life in the UK and the USA allows terrorists to operate. By and large, we are not a suspicious nation, nor is America - despite what a few xenophobic people would like us to think. If you act normally and are pleasant, go to work, live in a house then we think nothing of it. Freedom bought by the deaths of our ancestors in two world wars has become something we enjoy and, generaly want to share with others. We let others who say they are in dnager into our country and help them, we do our best to look after everyone in the country. We may not always manage to live up to that ideal but we try, and that has to be better than nothing right ?
In response to this new threat, the UK and the US are leading the way in developing a response, to make sure that should the worst happen, we can deal with it. Special forces are right now engaged in urban warfare training and have been for a long time. Civil rights groups accuse governments of training troops to attack their own population but nothing could be further from the truth....because nations like Iraq are not the only ones who have men and women ready to die for a cause.
Spetember 2001; The attack on 9/11 against the USA marked the first attack by another nation on the American mainland and was previously thought impossible.
Spring 1999; Bosnia, Nato warplanes and bombers struggled to find the Serbian's who were killing so many.
October 2001; The largest air campaign since the Gulf War begin in Afghanistan from air craft carriers and long range bombers.
The days of massed armies clashing over a no mans land are gone. The Gulf War was the last time we will see legions of armoured tanks speeding across a battleground as foot troops follow closely behind. Welcome to the 21st century, and a new style of warfare.
World War 2 was the last clear cut conflict where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly visible. Only a minority of lunatics will argue that the Nazi threat was anything but evil and needed stopping. Korea and Vietnam followed and all of a sudden the bad guys disappeared because very few actually knew which side was which, and what they were even fighting for. The TV showed scenes reminiscent of Hollywood, and maybe that was the problem because the real deaths seen by viewers lost their meaning. Then came the Falklands and for once the sides reappeared. The Argentinians had taken our land and we had to get it back - simple. Then the Gulf War began in 1990 and the sides were lost. Despite the murder of Kuwaitis and dozens of hostages taekn by Iraqi troops a sentiment arose in some of the public that the West was the bad guy - despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Eastern countries endorsed Desert Storm. Every missed target and mistaken bombing of civilians mattered more than the atrocities Iraq was committing whilst the West argued with itself. Whilst the moral highground was discussed innocent people that could have been saved died.
Now, with terrorism doing what many have predicted for so long, rearing its ugly head, urban warfare is the future. The Battlefields are no longer going to be miles from home, but in the cities and towns of the West and across the internet. Why ?
The Gulf War sent two messages to woul;d-be invaders. Firstly, the West will always protect its friends no matter where they are. Secondly, engage the West in conventional warfare and you'll face annhilation, we an hit you faster, harder and with more firepower than you can imagine - make no mistake, you'll lose. The West had time to get its forces in place to repel Iraq, over 2 months.
Urban warfare is different and more effective for the new enemies that freedom loving nations face. Libya, Iraq, Iran and others, plus various terrorist groups internal and external, have masses of troops and supporters who will risk death to attack their enemies, whether they be civlians or not. Atacks can now cause financial as well as physical damage, and also cripple a country. Remember how the IRA brought the nation to a standstill years ago by placing bomb like packages on the motorways ? Four real explosives ( I think ) bought 4 days of chaos and crippled the road system. 9/11 triggered a wordlwide recession fear that could now be ocming true and resulted in many thousands losing employment, xmas retail sales dropped in many areas and tourism losses were massive, not to mention financial losses on the markets and in terms of real business, plus the crippling insurance payouts firms face. A small group of trained people can damage us more than any army could ever hope to.
Yet the way of life in the UK and the USA allows terrorists to operate. By and large, we are not a suspicious nation, nor is America - despite what a few xenophobic people would like us to think. If you act normally and are pleasant, go to work, live in a house then we think nothing of it. Freedom bought by the deaths of our ancestors in two world wars has become something we enjoy and, generaly want to share with others. We let others who say they are in dnager into our country and help them, we do our best to look after everyone in the country. We may not always manage to live up to that ideal but we try, and that has to be better than nothing right ?
In response to this new threat, the UK and the US are leading the way in developing a response, to make sure that should the worst happen, we can deal with it. Special forces are right now engaged in urban warfare training and have been for a long time. Civil rights groups accuse governments of training troops to attack their own population but nothing could be further from the truth....because nations like Iraq are not the only ones who have men and women ready to die for a cause.
You're probably right there - it is a simplistic way of dividing the world but it is what's happening right now - just as the Cold War saw every country designated by NATO as either friendly or enemy. In this new style of warfare you cannot have a country decide to be neutral or being unsure of where they stand as they could become a harbour for terrorists seeking sanctuary....and a target for those who pursue them.
Its true that it can be argued whether someone is a terrorist or freedom fighter but only to a point. Can you argue that freedom fighter can commit suicide and kill civilians who have no bearing on the peace process in terms of their ability to dictate state policy ? A freedom fighter attacks those who threaten him - military/police e.t.c., not people who cannot fight back as the Palestinians favour. Israel is attacking civilian areas in Palestinian territory but if the terrorist choose to hide in a civilian population then what choice does Israel have ? Bush and Blair are today calling for Israel to withdraw but Israel doesnt seem to care anymore.....
As much as I hate to say this, the end sequence to Metal Gear Solid 2 describes - to me - the concept of taking sides in this war on terrorism.
It doesn't matter whether you're wrong or right, just how much faith you're willing to have in what you believe in.
I believe there are sides, that terrorism can be beaten, and that America and England are doing all they can towards that end.
Its true that it can be argued whether someone is a terrorist or freedom fighter but only to a point. Can you argue that freedom fighter can commit suicide and kill civilians who have no bearing on the peace process in terms of their ability to dictate state policy ? A freedom fighter attacks those who threaten him - military/police e.t.c., not people who cannot fight back as the Palestinians favour. Israel is attacking civilian areas in Palestinian territory but if the terrorist choose to hide in a civilian population then what choice does Israel have ? Bush and Blair are today calling for Israel to withdraw but Israel doesnt seem to care anymore.....
As much as I hate to say this, the end sequence to Metal Gear Solid 2 describes - to me - the concept of taking sides in this war on terrorism.
It doesn't matter whether you're wrong or right, just how much faith you're willing to have in what you believe in.
I believe there are sides, that terrorism can be beaten, and that America and England are doing all they can towards that end.
Belldandy wrote:
>After 9/11 I think every country has to take a side, you're either with the new alliance thats forming or with the terrorists.
Unfortunately this is rather too simplistic. As Mr. Happy pointed out there is a fine line between a 'movement of national liberation' and a 'terrorist group'. In the case of Al-Quaeda, of course, the distinction is easily made: they have consistently sacrificed innocents to advance their aims. These people are terrorists. But the 'war on terror' has widened in scope, just as the 'war on drugs' did before it, and during this process has become subverted by long-standing political agendas. Columbia's right-wing government has attracted massive US funding in both of these phony wars, which, although ostensibly used to fight the 'drug lords and terrorists' of the rebel zones, is in fact a prop to one side in a long-running civil war. Only the powerful nations have the right to brand one (pliable) group as liberators and another (independent or, god forbid, left-wing) group as terrorists: the problem comes when they do so dishonestly.
In Israel, for example, Sharon is deliberately using tactics of terror. His troops are kicking in doors, smashing water pipes and cutting off electricity supplies; ambulances and international aid organisations are denied access to the war zones; people are shot by snipers as they try to enter and leave hospital; beatings and extra-judical killings of 'suspects' have become commonplace. And yet throughout this intifada and the recent escalation, Sharon has claimed that Israel is attacking the infrastructure of terror. In his words he apes Blair and Bush, but Sharon's tactic of targeting civilian populations is more akin to the terrorists he opposes than to a member of our 'civilised' coalition. Israel, like the US, has the power to impose a terrorist label on its enemies.
A world without terror would be a wonderful place: but kowtowing to the uncritical 'with us or against us' line is plain silly.
>After 9/11 I think every country has to take a side, you're either with the new alliance thats forming or with the terrorists.
Unfortunately this is rather too simplistic. As Mr. Happy pointed out there is a fine line between a 'movement of national liberation' and a 'terrorist group'. In the case of Al-Quaeda, of course, the distinction is easily made: they have consistently sacrificed innocents to advance their aims. These people are terrorists. But the 'war on terror' has widened in scope, just as the 'war on drugs' did before it, and during this process has become subverted by long-standing political agendas. Columbia's right-wing government has attracted massive US funding in both of these phony wars, which, although ostensibly used to fight the 'drug lords and terrorists' of the rebel zones, is in fact a prop to one side in a long-running civil war. Only the powerful nations have the right to brand one (pliable) group as liberators and another (independent or, god forbid, left-wing) group as terrorists: the problem comes when they do so dishonestly.
In Israel, for example, Sharon is deliberately using tactics of terror. His troops are kicking in doors, smashing water pipes and cutting off electricity supplies; ambulances and international aid organisations are denied access to the war zones; people are shot by snipers as they try to enter and leave hospital; beatings and extra-judical killings of 'suspects' have become commonplace. And yet throughout this intifada and the recent escalation, Sharon has claimed that Israel is attacking the infrastructure of terror. In his words he apes Blair and Bush, but Sharon's tactic of targeting civilian populations is more akin to the terrorists he opposes than to a member of our 'civilised' coalition. Israel, like the US, has the power to impose a terrorist label on its enemies.
A world without terror would be a wonderful place: but kowtowing to the uncritical 'with us or against us' line is plain silly.
Mr. Happy wrote:
That's what the world is all about. Hypocrisy and semantics. I'm not
> backing any side or taking a corner, because you can't. Everyone is as bad as
> everyone else but no one will admit it.
After 9/11 I think every country has to take a side, you're either with the new alliance thats forming or with the terrorists.
Yes, in history the definiton of "friends" has changed over and over again. Every country, even Switzerland, has parts of its past that are none to honourable. That is history though. I'm not saying it's right, or that it was wrong.
People in power at those times made decisions that, hopefully, they beleived were well intentioned and would benefit the people who had voted them in. They may have succeeded or failed, but they tried.
In the 16th century many British explorers honestly believed they were helping Africa by "civilising" it, it led to the slave trade.
America believed backing the mujahadeen could help win a conflict in Europe, it never happened.
The Arab allies in the Gulf War stopped America advancing on Baghdad and years later we are still paying the price for that mistake.
We can't predict history, no one, not you or me, can say that, for example, advancing on Baghdad in 1991 would mean peae in the Middle East today. What if Saddam had hit israel with WMD's...if the Republican guard had proved stronger than we thought...what if what if.....we can puzzle over history and the rights and wrongs for ages. For too long. The present is all that matters now, and our actions and those of our leaders will themselves be judged by historians who will have no understanding of our time.
An example....I watched Sky News on 9/11 as the second plane hit the WTC live on air, then later as both towers collapsed, and people jumping from the towers, and the FBI storming a hotel..... what I thought and felt as the events happened is never the same as watching a replay of those events. It never can be.
That's what the world is all about. Hypocrisy and semantics. I'm not
> backing any side or taking a corner, because you can't. Everyone is as bad as
> everyone else but no one will admit it.
After 9/11 I think every country has to take a side, you're either with the new alliance thats forming or with the terrorists.
Yes, in history the definiton of "friends" has changed over and over again. Every country, even Switzerland, has parts of its past that are none to honourable. That is history though. I'm not saying it's right, or that it was wrong.
People in power at those times made decisions that, hopefully, they beleived were well intentioned and would benefit the people who had voted them in. They may have succeeded or failed, but they tried.
In the 16th century many British explorers honestly believed they were helping Africa by "civilising" it, it led to the slave trade.
America believed backing the mujahadeen could help win a conflict in Europe, it never happened.
The Arab allies in the Gulf War stopped America advancing on Baghdad and years later we are still paying the price for that mistake.
We can't predict history, no one, not you or me, can say that, for example, advancing on Baghdad in 1991 would mean peae in the Middle East today. What if Saddam had hit israel with WMD's...if the Republican guard had proved stronger than we thought...what if what if.....we can puzzle over history and the rights and wrongs for ages. For too long. The present is all that matters now, and our actions and those of our leaders will themselves be judged by historians who will have no understanding of our time.
An example....I watched Sky News on 9/11 as the second plane hit the WTC live on air, then later as both towers collapsed, and people jumping from the towers, and the FBI storming a hotel..... what I thought and felt as the events happened is never the same as watching a replay of those events. It never can be.
Belldandy wrote:
> Firstly, the West will always protect its
> friends no matter where they are.
Oh yes. Yes indeed. Friends of the West. Let's talk about how the West treats its friends. What about the rebels in Iraq? They were our friends. Did we help them? Yes, for a bit and then we sold them up the stream by refusing to advance on Baghdad. We left Saddam Hussain in power and he rounded up our "friends" and killed and tortured them. Because that's how the West treats its friends.
Oh, sorry got carried away there... you meant our *friends*. Saddam Hussain's a *friend* you know. He was backed to the rooftops by the West against Iran, and why was that? Because Iran was award-winning, record-breaking, number-one arch-enemy of the day. So we spoke to our *friend* Saddam and he helped against Iran. Then what happened to our buddy Saddam? He went off the rails a bit; this monster of our own creation, so now it's time to move in and undo what damage we did, but hey let's leave another monster in his place because that's tradition.
Friends? The taliban were America's *friends*... when the Russians, those Commie bastads were our enemy. Those no good Commies went into Afghanistan and who was the rebel force with the mostest.. yes American backing went to those mad Islam fanatics willing to blow themselves to kingdom come if it meant ridding Afghanistan of Russians. America gave them Stinger missiles and guns and training and then what happened? Those mad fanatics went and bit the and that fed them. How damn rude of them. Our *friends* turned around and had the audacity to become anti-America.
Are you our friend today? Because you should be wary, we are the West and we are the most fickle of superpowers. We'll back you today and bomb you tomorrow because that's what we do best. And you'd better be our friend because if you're not then you're one of THEM. The heathens, sorry I meant Muslims, yes you're part of the "uncivilised" world, unless you're one of the gang because we can napalm children and shoot journalists and we are still civilised because we can nuke cities and ignore everything you say, and yet we are civilised because you are not.
I am not saying that Saddam doesn't deserve to be ousted from power. I am not saying that he isn't a threat to the Western world. But don't talk about friends of the West because the West doesn't have friends, just means to an end. You didn't say it, but George Bush did, namely that the civilised world should stand up against the terrorist-supporting countries. George Bush claims that we are civilised? I don't think that a single country with the possible exception of Switzerland has any claim to being civilised.
At the end of the day who is a terrorist? It's a subversive faction that America does not back. If America backs your terrorist group (ie Northern Alliance) then you are magically transformed into "freedom fighters" because there's a difference don't you know. That's what the world is all about. Hypocrisy and semantics. I'm not backing any side or taking a corner, because you can't. Everyone is as bad as everyone else but no one will admit it.
> Firstly, the West will always protect its
> friends no matter where they are.
Oh yes. Yes indeed. Friends of the West. Let's talk about how the West treats its friends. What about the rebels in Iraq? They were our friends. Did we help them? Yes, for a bit and then we sold them up the stream by refusing to advance on Baghdad. We left Saddam Hussain in power and he rounded up our "friends" and killed and tortured them. Because that's how the West treats its friends.
Oh, sorry got carried away there... you meant our *friends*. Saddam Hussain's a *friend* you know. He was backed to the rooftops by the West against Iran, and why was that? Because Iran was award-winning, record-breaking, number-one arch-enemy of the day. So we spoke to our *friend* Saddam and he helped against Iran. Then what happened to our buddy Saddam? He went off the rails a bit; this monster of our own creation, so now it's time to move in and undo what damage we did, but hey let's leave another monster in his place because that's tradition.
Friends? The taliban were America's *friends*... when the Russians, those Commie bastads were our enemy. Those no good Commies went into Afghanistan and who was the rebel force with the mostest.. yes American backing went to those mad Islam fanatics willing to blow themselves to kingdom come if it meant ridding Afghanistan of Russians. America gave them Stinger missiles and guns and training and then what happened? Those mad fanatics went and bit the and that fed them. How damn rude of them. Our *friends* turned around and had the audacity to become anti-America.
Are you our friend today? Because you should be wary, we are the West and we are the most fickle of superpowers. We'll back you today and bomb you tomorrow because that's what we do best. And you'd better be our friend because if you're not then you're one of THEM. The heathens, sorry I meant Muslims, yes you're part of the "uncivilised" world, unless you're one of the gang because we can napalm children and shoot journalists and we are still civilised because we can nuke cities and ignore everything you say, and yet we are civilised because you are not.
I am not saying that Saddam doesn't deserve to be ousted from power. I am not saying that he isn't a threat to the Western world. But don't talk about friends of the West because the West doesn't have friends, just means to an end. You didn't say it, but George Bush did, namely that the civilised world should stand up against the terrorist-supporting countries. George Bush claims that we are civilised? I don't think that a single country with the possible exception of Switzerland has any claim to being civilised.
At the end of the day who is a terrorist? It's a subversive faction that America does not back. If America backs your terrorist group (ie Northern Alliance) then you are magically transformed into "freedom fighters" because there's a difference don't you know. That's what the world is all about. Hypocrisy and semantics. I'm not backing any side or taking a corner, because you can't. Everyone is as bad as everyone else but no one will admit it.
April 2001; Watch the news and you'll see how Israel has in a matter of a week occupied massive urban areas in Palestinian occupied territories.
Spetember 2001; The attack on 9/11 against the USA marked the first attack by another nation on the American mainland and was previously thought impossible.
Spring 1999; Bosnia, Nato warplanes and bombers struggled to find the Serbian's who were killing so many.
October 2001; The largest air campaign since the Gulf War begin in Afghanistan from air craft carriers and long range bombers.
The days of massed armies clashing over a no mans land are gone. The Gulf War was the last time we will see legions of armoured tanks speeding across a battleground as foot troops follow closely behind. Welcome to the 21st century, and a new style of warfare.
World War 2 was the last clear cut conflict where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly visible. Only a minority of lunatics will argue that the Nazi threat was anything but evil and needed stopping. Korea and Vietnam followed and all of a sudden the bad guys disappeared because very few actually knew which side was which, and what they were even fighting for. The TV showed scenes reminiscent of Hollywood, and maybe that was the problem because the real deaths seen by viewers lost their meaning. Then came the Falklands and for once the sides reappeared. The Argentinians had taken our land and we had to get it back - simple. Then the Gulf War began in 1990 and the sides were lost. Despite the murder of Kuwaitis and dozens of hostages taekn by Iraqi troops a sentiment arose in some of the public that the West was the bad guy - despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Eastern countries endorsed Desert Storm. Every missed target and mistaken bombing of civilians mattered more than the atrocities Iraq was committing whilst the West argued with itself. Whilst the moral highground was discussed innocent people that could have been saved died.
Now, with terrorism doing what many have predicted for so long, rearing its ugly head, urban warfare is the future. The Battlefields are no longer going to be miles from home, but in the cities and towns of the West and across the internet. Why ?
The Gulf War sent two messages to woul;d-be invaders. Firstly, the West will always protect its friends no matter where they are. Secondly, engage the West in conventional warfare and you'll face annhilation, we an hit you faster, harder and with more firepower than you can imagine - make no mistake, you'll lose. The West had time to get its forces in place to repel Iraq, over 2 months.
Urban warfare is different and more effective for the new enemies that freedom loving nations face. Libya, Iraq, Iran and others, plus various terrorist groups internal and external, have masses of troops and supporters who will risk death to attack their enemies, whether they be civlians or not. Atacks can now cause financial as well as physical damage, and also cripple a country. Remember how the IRA brought the nation to a standstill years ago by placing bomb like packages on the motorways ? Four real explosives ( I think ) bought 4 days of chaos and crippled the road system. 9/11 triggered a wordlwide recession fear that could now be ocming true and resulted in many thousands losing employment, xmas retail sales dropped in many areas and tourism losses were massive, not to mention financial losses on the markets and in terms of real business, plus the crippling insurance payouts firms face. A small group of trained people can damage us more than any army could ever hope to.
Yet the way of life in the UK and the USA allows terrorists to operate. By and large, we are not a suspicious nation, nor is America - despite what a few xenophobic people would like us to think. If you act normally and are pleasant, go to work, live in a house then we think nothing of it. Freedom bought by the deaths of our ancestors in two world wars has become something we enjoy and, generaly want to share with others. We let others who say they are in dnager into our country and help them, we do our best to look after everyone in the country. We may not always manage to live up to that ideal but we try, and that has to be better than nothing right ?
In response to this new threat, the UK and the US are leading the way in developing a response, to make sure that should the worst happen, we can deal with it. Special forces are right now engaged in urban warfare training and have been for a long time. Civil rights groups accuse governments of training troops to attack their own population but nothing could be further from the truth....because nations like Iraq are not the only ones who have men and women ready to die for a cause.
Spetember 2001; The attack on 9/11 against the USA marked the first attack by another nation on the American mainland and was previously thought impossible.
Spring 1999; Bosnia, Nato warplanes and bombers struggled to find the Serbian's who were killing so many.
October 2001; The largest air campaign since the Gulf War begin in Afghanistan from air craft carriers and long range bombers.
The days of massed armies clashing over a no mans land are gone. The Gulf War was the last time we will see legions of armoured tanks speeding across a battleground as foot troops follow closely behind. Welcome to the 21st century, and a new style of warfare.
World War 2 was the last clear cut conflict where the good guys and the bad guys were clearly visible. Only a minority of lunatics will argue that the Nazi threat was anything but evil and needed stopping. Korea and Vietnam followed and all of a sudden the bad guys disappeared because very few actually knew which side was which, and what they were even fighting for. The TV showed scenes reminiscent of Hollywood, and maybe that was the problem because the real deaths seen by viewers lost their meaning. Then came the Falklands and for once the sides reappeared. The Argentinians had taken our land and we had to get it back - simple. Then the Gulf War began in 1990 and the sides were lost. Despite the murder of Kuwaitis and dozens of hostages taekn by Iraqi troops a sentiment arose in some of the public that the West was the bad guy - despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Eastern countries endorsed Desert Storm. Every missed target and mistaken bombing of civilians mattered more than the atrocities Iraq was committing whilst the West argued with itself. Whilst the moral highground was discussed innocent people that could have been saved died.
Now, with terrorism doing what many have predicted for so long, rearing its ugly head, urban warfare is the future. The Battlefields are no longer going to be miles from home, but in the cities and towns of the West and across the internet. Why ?
The Gulf War sent two messages to woul;d-be invaders. Firstly, the West will always protect its friends no matter where they are. Secondly, engage the West in conventional warfare and you'll face annhilation, we an hit you faster, harder and with more firepower than you can imagine - make no mistake, you'll lose. The West had time to get its forces in place to repel Iraq, over 2 months.
Urban warfare is different and more effective for the new enemies that freedom loving nations face. Libya, Iraq, Iran and others, plus various terrorist groups internal and external, have masses of troops and supporters who will risk death to attack their enemies, whether they be civlians or not. Atacks can now cause financial as well as physical damage, and also cripple a country. Remember how the IRA brought the nation to a standstill years ago by placing bomb like packages on the motorways ? Four real explosives ( I think ) bought 4 days of chaos and crippled the road system. 9/11 triggered a wordlwide recession fear that could now be ocming true and resulted in many thousands losing employment, xmas retail sales dropped in many areas and tourism losses were massive, not to mention financial losses on the markets and in terms of real business, plus the crippling insurance payouts firms face. A small group of trained people can damage us more than any army could ever hope to.
Yet the way of life in the UK and the USA allows terrorists to operate. By and large, we are not a suspicious nation, nor is America - despite what a few xenophobic people would like us to think. If you act normally and are pleasant, go to work, live in a house then we think nothing of it. Freedom bought by the deaths of our ancestors in two world wars has become something we enjoy and, generaly want to share with others. We let others who say they are in dnager into our country and help them, we do our best to look after everyone in the country. We may not always manage to live up to that ideal but we try, and that has to be better than nothing right ?
In response to this new threat, the UK and the US are leading the way in developing a response, to make sure that should the worst happen, we can deal with it. Special forces are right now engaged in urban warfare training and have been for a long time. Civil rights groups accuse governments of training troops to attack their own population but nothing could be further from the truth....because nations like Iraq are not the only ones who have men and women ready to die for a cause.