The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Thinking about the talk the USA government about attacking Iraq, is it such a good idea?
Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister) has been sucking up to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention neighbouring countries aswell.
What are your views on this?
Should their be an attack on Iraq?
Who should attack them?
Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister) has been sucking up to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention neighbouring countries aswell.
What are your views on this?
Should their be an attack on Iraq?
Who should attack them?
Flee wrote:
> Thinking about the talk the USA government about attacking Iraq, is it
> such a good idea?
>
> Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have
> stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister)
- WHAT? primeinister?
> has been sucking up
> to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean
> that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
>
> Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any
> part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention
> neighbouring countries aswell.
>
Don't you mean the UK? What about Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.
And Saddam probably doesn't have nuclear weapons, at least not ones that are advanced enough to fire over continents.
As for Tony Blair, well I feal almost sorry for him, caught between a rock and a hard place.
> Thinking about the talk the USA government about attacking Iraq, is it
> such a good idea?
>
> Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have
> stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister)
- WHAT? primeinister?
> has been sucking up
> to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean
> that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
>
> Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any
> part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention
> neighbouring countries aswell.
>
Don't you mean the UK? What about Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.
And Saddam probably doesn't have nuclear weapons, at least not ones that are advanced enough to fire over continents.
As for Tony Blair, well I feal almost sorry for him, caught between a rock and a hard place.
It's only a no-win war for countries as souless as those in the West. The probelm that America and Britain will face is that when thinking about launching a nuke, they do consider the threat of mutually-assured destruction. However, in cultures with a tradition of death before defeat, Japan for isntance famed for its kamikaze pilots in WWII, you cannot rely on them to take into account MAD. I imagine that a Saddam Hussain on the verge of being toppled would launch a nuclear missile at America or Britain, and die in the process, rather than simply dying without a fight. In many ways this is why the West wants rid of Saddam (even though the US put him into power in Iraq) because he is a loose cannon, who wouldn't properly evaluate the isks of a nuclear or chemical attack.
However, Saddam also represents everything that is wrong with our methods for dealing with problems. No leader ever thinks into the long-term, and this problem is crystallised in Saddam: a man put in power by the US as the short term solution to ridding America of a tiresome faction inhibiting oil flows, a man kept in power by George Bush senior's selling out of the rebel forces in Iraq when he called off the invasion of Baghdad, and a man who will be deposed from power regardless of the long-term consequences.
And they are serious consequences. Firstly attacking Iraq forces the other Muslim countries to take sides. If they follow their religion then they must support Saddam, either actively or tacitly, but in both cases to America's disadvantage. Inevitably some countries will provide support to the US, weakening their links with the other Middle Eastern countries and increasing the unstability in the region. Secondly any sane leader cannot support a US attack because it seems that Bush is going to attack without pretext, or any acknowledgement of UN resolutions. Saddam is already playing on this fact by reaching ot not only to the UN egos, but those in the US senate and Brussels, by inviting them for weapons inspections. Whether Saddam has weapons or not, they won't find anything given the impossibility of monitoring things completely, but they will want to go rather than go to war. The UN requires countries to pursue all diplomatic lines of enquiry before going to war. America has stated quite bluntly that it intends to depose Saddam and will not enter into discussions with him. When they do go to war many European and Islamic countries will thus be infuriated at America's seeming war-mongering.
While I can see why America feels it must attack Saddam, it has to do it in a less cumbersome way. It is my belief that when America does go to war, it will be without pre-text, and that makes America no better than the other great agressors of the 20th Century. I'm not comparing them to the Nazis because they occupied countries with no history of dissidence, but it is worrying that a country as large as America can be allowed to work above international law when it wants to, and exploit international law when it needs to. America needs to play an active role in international politics; it needs to ratify the Kyoto treaty; it needs to compy with trade regulations; it needs to work within the confines of international law. Make no mistake, Saddam is a master at manipulating those laws to ensure his survival, but that doesn't give America carte blanche to ignore them. The erosion of such laws can only serve to make the world a more dangerous place; it will leave America as an agressor in the eyes of millions of Muslims; it will set a precedent whereby other countries will follow America's suit and aggress in equal measures. If that sounds implausible then look to Israel where the "war on terror" has been turned into a gilt-edged invitation to occupy Palistinian lands whenever there is an attack (which are in part themselves caused by the Israeli aggression). If America ignores international law, then who's to say that Israel won't follow suit and occupy citing America's actions as justification.
The attack on Saddam will bring about a far more subtle mutually-assured destruction than the apocalypse of a nuclear attack. America will win but indoing so will destroy the fabric of international law and diplomacy, which will be the destruction of us all in the end.
The best way to wage a war on terror would be to let the conglomerates invade the Middle-East. Gap, McDonalds, Sony, and their legions of publicists and shallow incentives. Only when the religious fervour of Islam has been extinguished in the moral vaccuum of Western culture (if that's not an oxymoron) can we all sleep safe at night.
However, Saddam also represents everything that is wrong with our methods for dealing with problems. No leader ever thinks into the long-term, and this problem is crystallised in Saddam: a man put in power by the US as the short term solution to ridding America of a tiresome faction inhibiting oil flows, a man kept in power by George Bush senior's selling out of the rebel forces in Iraq when he called off the invasion of Baghdad, and a man who will be deposed from power regardless of the long-term consequences.
And they are serious consequences. Firstly attacking Iraq forces the other Muslim countries to take sides. If they follow their religion then they must support Saddam, either actively or tacitly, but in both cases to America's disadvantage. Inevitably some countries will provide support to the US, weakening their links with the other Middle Eastern countries and increasing the unstability in the region. Secondly any sane leader cannot support a US attack because it seems that Bush is going to attack without pretext, or any acknowledgement of UN resolutions. Saddam is already playing on this fact by reaching ot not only to the UN egos, but those in the US senate and Brussels, by inviting them for weapons inspections. Whether Saddam has weapons or not, they won't find anything given the impossibility of monitoring things completely, but they will want to go rather than go to war. The UN requires countries to pursue all diplomatic lines of enquiry before going to war. America has stated quite bluntly that it intends to depose Saddam and will not enter into discussions with him. When they do go to war many European and Islamic countries will thus be infuriated at America's seeming war-mongering.
While I can see why America feels it must attack Saddam, it has to do it in a less cumbersome way. It is my belief that when America does go to war, it will be without pre-text, and that makes America no better than the other great agressors of the 20th Century. I'm not comparing them to the Nazis because they occupied countries with no history of dissidence, but it is worrying that a country as large as America can be allowed to work above international law when it wants to, and exploit international law when it needs to. America needs to play an active role in international politics; it needs to ratify the Kyoto treaty; it needs to compy with trade regulations; it needs to work within the confines of international law. Make no mistake, Saddam is a master at manipulating those laws to ensure his survival, but that doesn't give America carte blanche to ignore them. The erosion of such laws can only serve to make the world a more dangerous place; it will leave America as an agressor in the eyes of millions of Muslims; it will set a precedent whereby other countries will follow America's suit and aggress in equal measures. If that sounds implausible then look to Israel where the "war on terror" has been turned into a gilt-edged invitation to occupy Palistinian lands whenever there is an attack (which are in part themselves caused by the Israeli aggression). If America ignores international law, then who's to say that Israel won't follow suit and occupy citing America's actions as justification.
The attack on Saddam will bring about a far more subtle mutually-assured destruction than the apocalypse of a nuclear attack. America will win but indoing so will destroy the fabric of international law and diplomacy, which will be the destruction of us all in the end.
The best way to wage a war on terror would be to let the conglomerates invade the Middle-East. Gap, McDonalds, Sony, and their legions of publicists and shallow incentives. Only when the religious fervour of Islam has been extinguished in the moral vaccuum of Western culture (if that's not an oxymoron) can we all sleep safe at night.
There won't be a nuclear war. If Sadam where to launch a nuke at our country, the US could retaliate with some of their nukes, and destroy Iraq, it's called a 'no win war'. Nobody uses nuclear weapons as actual weapons; they use them as deterrents to other countries.
specially genetic engineered monkeys should attack, ones with laser beams strapped to their heads, and rocket launchers on their backs. Several razor blades are attached to the monkeys tails for close-quarter combat.
I think you'll agree, a formidable opponent for sadams inept army.... :o)
I think you'll agree, a formidable opponent for sadams inept army.... :o)
Thinking about the talk the USA government about attacking Iraq, is it such a good idea?
Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister) has been sucking up to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention neighbouring countries aswell.
What are your views on this?
Should their be an attack on Iraq?
Who should attack them?
Well, living in England, it scares me to think what Sadam may have stored for his weapons! Tony Blair (primeinister) has been sucking up to George Bush for sometime, but if he keeps doing it, that will mean that we (England) will have to take part in an attack on Iraq.
Being such a small country, the chance of a nuclear bomb hitting any part of it, could destory the whole country, not to mention neighbouring countries aswell.
What are your views on this?
Should their be an attack on Iraq?
Who should attack them?