The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm starting to think that fear is perhaps the greatest danger this coming year - not on a personal level of course, but on a wider, global scale.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
Page:
I'm starting to think that fear is perhaps the greatest danger this coming year - not on a personal level of course, but on a wider, global scale.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea, embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it - they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused. War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the rest - driven by fear.
More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know, but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror, am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just bombs and bullets.
Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than following what others have said or told me.
2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
In a different angle to what Belldandy said, but about the same topic, I have written my own response.
I suppose fear is almost definately going to become more prevalent in the 21st century, as it has done for a while now, as the world's technologies grow.
The ability to use weapons of mass destruction uses technology for bad, in my opinion, although I know others would disagree with me. Their argument is often that countries will not go to war because they know of what terrible and far-reaching consequences a nucleur/biological/chemical war would have.
But in my opinon, the downsides of having weapons of mass destruction definately outway the good. The fact of uncertainty that, especially with countries like Russia and South Korea (although the Americans are as stupid too sometimes) to neglect proper checks so that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. (Or governements hating the West could give them to terrorist organizations deliberately).
The other type of technology is communications and media. As people are so much more aware than they were, say- well, even 5 years ago, due to the internet's rapid growth of users (yay!). And with more and more of us needing to know what is happening beyond our shores, and more people able to, it is no wonder more people are going to fear the terrofying prospects of nucleur war, smallpox outbreaks etc. bandied about by the media.
Going back to what I said earlier, about nations whose weapons could be taken by a terrorist operation, the issue of Smallpox is a prime example. The highly infectious disease which kills nearly 1/2 of all infected and leaves most others permanently scared, was irradicated in the nineties. Two strains were kept in the entire world, not as a deterrant, of course, so they could be used as weapons, but so the vaccines could be made from them. However some of the Russian strain is said to have been sold to organizations for a high price. Russia needed money, so this scenario is not unthinkable. So now we live in fear of a smallpox attack as this strain may or may not have been compromised.
And this could happen to a nucleur weapons source. Think of it: in the future, we find out, some nukes may have been pinched by terrorists at some time... it could happen.
But it wouldn't if there were none in the first place! Just like there would be no worry about smallpox now if the last two strains had been destroyed.
The world we live in now is not yet ruled by fear. It dominates lives, but doesn't control them.
Yet.
I suppose fear is almost definately going to become more prevalent in the 21st century, as it has done for a while now, as the world's technologies grow.
The ability to use weapons of mass destruction uses technology for bad, in my opinion, although I know others would disagree with me. Their argument is often that countries will not go to war because they know of what terrible and far-reaching consequences a nucleur/biological/chemical war would have.
But in my opinon, the downsides of having weapons of mass destruction definately outway the good. The fact of uncertainty that, especially with countries like Russia and South Korea (although the Americans are as stupid too sometimes) to neglect proper checks so that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. (Or governements hating the West could give them to terrorist organizations deliberately).
The other type of technology is communications and media. As people are so much more aware than they were, say- well, even 5 years ago, due to the internet's rapid growth of users (yay!). And with more and more of us needing to know what is happening beyond our shores, and more people able to, it is no wonder more people are going to fear the terrofying prospects of nucleur war, smallpox outbreaks etc. bandied about by the media.
Going back to what I said earlier, about nations whose weapons could be taken by a terrorist operation, the issue of Smallpox is a prime example. The highly infectious disease which kills nearly 1/2 of all infected and leaves most others permanently scared, was irradicated in the nineties. Two strains were kept in the entire world, not as a deterrant, of course, so they could be used as weapons, but so the vaccines could be made from them. However some of the Russian strain is said to have been sold to organizations for a high price. Russia needed money, so this scenario is not unthinkable. So now we live in fear of a smallpox attack as this strain may or may not have been compromised.
And this could happen to a nucleur weapons source. Think of it: in the future, we find out, some nukes may have been pinched by terrorists at some time... it could happen.
But it wouldn't if there were none in the first place! Just like there would be no worry about smallpox now if the last two strains had been destroyed.
The world we live in now is not yet ruled by fear. It dominates lives, but doesn't control them.
Yet.
Nice to see you're softening your opinions. I predict that by 2004 you'll be voting socialist, snorting coke and telling jokes about George Bush. :P
There is plenty of fear in the world, but I don't think we deal with it the right way. If we feel threatened by a country, our first reaction is to blow it off the face of the earth. The trouble with that rationale is that when other countries start applying it to *us* then we'll be in all sorts of bother. This is what I don't understand about 'pre-emptive strikes'. Right now, under this doctrine, Iraq has more reason to attack us, than we do to attack Iraq. We have the means and the desire to bomb Baghdad; Saddam doesn't have the ability or inclination to bomb Washington. As far as I'm concerned this is madness. The price we pay for being civilised is that we don't attack anyone unless they attack us first, otherwise the world would constantly be at war with itself.
There is plenty of fear in the world, but I don't think we deal with it the right way. If we feel threatened by a country, our first reaction is to blow it off the face of the earth. The trouble with that rationale is that when other countries start applying it to *us* then we'll be in all sorts of bother. This is what I don't understand about 'pre-emptive strikes'. Right now, under this doctrine, Iraq has more reason to attack us, than we do to attack Iraq. We have the means and the desire to bomb Baghdad; Saddam doesn't have the ability or inclination to bomb Washington. As far as I'm concerned this is madness. The price we pay for being civilised is that we don't attack anyone unless they attack us first, otherwise the world would constantly be at war with itself.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm starting to think that fear is perhaps the greatest danger this
> coming year - not on a personal level of course, but on a wider,
> global scale.
I agree; economically we're starting to experience a downturn due to this fear.
>
> America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising
> each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea
> will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea,
> embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which
> could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being
> told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it -
> they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
The US has a policy of only being involved in one major conflict, so I think NK are pushing it cos of the US being heavily involved in trying to start a war with Iraq. NK has a history of playing brinkmanship. None of which goes any way to alleviating the fear, but it is something to bear in mind when trying to find reasons for hope.
>
> In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of
> the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused.
> War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's
> weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of
> losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
As summaries go, that pretty much covers it.
>
> No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow
> up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates
> and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the
> rest - driven by fear.
Or we'll see the introduction of Megans Law over here. I dunno; I have my own opinions on this which I will post in greater detail later.
>
> More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear
> is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire
> to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting
> them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know,
> but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to
> wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror,
> am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from
> other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without
> charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so
> on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just
> bombs and bullets.
>
> Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they
> themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it
> later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than
> following what others have said or told me.
>
> 2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll
> wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions here, but I do agree with how you've phrased them. At the risk of sounding like the patronising git that I am, I only ripped into you because of your habit of ripping into other without even thinking. I'm a firm believer in "Do unto others as they do unto you". It's possible to be passionate about ones beliefs without being needlessly vile to those who disagree.
> I'm starting to think that fear is perhaps the greatest danger this
> coming year - not on a personal level of course, but on a wider,
> global scale.
I agree; economically we're starting to experience a downturn due to this fear.
>
> America and North Korea are exchanging veiled threats, and demonising
> each others population, because of fear. America fears North Korea
> will finally develop nuclear weapons, and threaten South Korea,
> embroiling America and it's allies in a war nobody wants - but which
> could happen. North Korea fears US aggression, it's people are being
> told to fear a US invasion of the country, and US action against it -
> they too could go to, and support, war through fear.
The US has a policy of only being involved in one major conflict, so I think NK are pushing it cos of the US being heavily involved in trying to start a war with Iraq. NK has a history of playing brinkmanship. None of which goes any way to alleviating the fear, but it is something to bear in mind when trying to find reasons for hope.
>
> In Iraq, fear is driving Iraq, the UN, America, and large swathes of
> the Middle East towards conflict unless the situation can be defused.
> War is bad for everyone involved, but Western fears of Saddam's
> weapons, and Saddams fears of losing power, and other parties fear of
> losing certain benefits, are driving decision making.
As summaries go, that pretty much covers it.
>
> No doubt, at some point this year, the whole pedophile thing will blow
> up again in this country, and we'll see people protesting on estates
> and the papers screaming for blood, summary executions and all the
> rest - driven by fear.
Or we'll see the introduction of Megans Law over here. I dunno; I have my own opinions on this which I will post in greater detail later.
>
> More than anything, fear is dominating the 21st century. What we fear
> is approached by us, metaphorically, with drawn weapons and a desire
> to destroy it. We aren't facing our fears very often, but shooting
> them without looking. Maybe that sounds too abstract ? I don't know,
> but look at what is happening in the world today an you have to
> wonder. Even I, one of the staunchest supporters of the war on terror,
> am beginning to question just how many more muslims, and people from
> other religious groups, can be arrested and then released without
> charge, or be removed from planes for just acting suspiciously, and so
> on. I no longer accept that this new enemy can be blown away with just
> bombs and bullets.
>
> Some people may wonder why it has taken me so long to see what they
> themselves have believed in for ages; I'd rather come to believe it
> later, having decided myself and done so from my own knowledge than
> following what others have said or told me.
>
> 2003 isn't necessarily going to be a bad year, or a good one, but I'll
> wager the fear won't go away, not yet.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions here, but I do agree with how you've phrased them. At the risk of sounding like the patronising git that I am, I only ripped into you because of your habit of ripping into other without even thinking. I'm a firm believer in "Do unto others as they do unto you". It's possible to be passionate about ones beliefs without being needlessly vile to those who disagree.
Light wrote:
> The US has a policy of only being involved in one major conflict, so I
> think NK are pushing it cos of the US being heavily involved in trying
> to start a war with Iraq. NK has a history of playing brinkmanship.
> None of which goes any way to alleviating the fear, but it is
> something to bear in mind when trying to find reasons for hope.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but (and I've even got a good source for this quote :) ) " the United States must be able to credibly deter and, if required, decisively defeat aggression, in concert with regional allies, by projecting and sustaining US power in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs). The Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) redefined this requirement as the ability to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars" (MTWs). ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/mtw.htm )
In addition to this the military has the ability to fight around 2-4 regional conflicts, and other small operations. The problem is does N. Korea realise this ? Any war against it would not be an invasion - in my opinion - but pinpoint operations aimed at destroying it's developing nuclear capability, because without that there is no problem anyway. With adequate intelligence - precise locations of the material and sites, plus key personnel's living quarters/homes - then the nuclear threat could easily be destoryed. Trouble is how would N Korea react, and other asian and middle eastern countries would see it as a highly aggressive act.
It could be an example of brinkmanship - coming at the same time as Iraq - but I think that the rest of the world that doesn't want to see a nuclear N Korea has to be ready to prevent it going nuclear. Diplomacy must be the first option - and hopefully N Korea will back down, but they will not give up on nuclear capability or wanting the South back at some stage.
War with Iraq is, to me, somewhat undecided. Large numbers of troops and equipment are being moved up but this could be just a visible threat more than true preparations for war now. World opinion is faltering because the public, and many countries, seem to require hundreds of deaths and a large smoking crater to remind them of some things. There is, of course, always the remotest chance that Iraq has no WMDS, but I don't believe it. Why ? The UN has proven itself inept before, and Iraq has had a long long time to hide the evidence. There is the issue of the USA and UK sharing intelligence with the UN, but I don't think anyone will be too eager to do so because, whilst the sites could hold the necessary evidence, it would reveal intel to Iraq - not good if war is imminent. If it does kick off then its going to be in the first 3 - 4 months of the year because of weather, deployments e.t.c.
> The US has a policy of only being involved in one major conflict, so I
> think NK are pushing it cos of the US being heavily involved in trying
> to start a war with Iraq. NK has a history of playing brinkmanship.
> None of which goes any way to alleviating the fear, but it is
> something to bear in mind when trying to find reasons for hope.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but (and I've even got a good source for this quote :) ) " the United States must be able to credibly deter and, if required, decisively defeat aggression, in concert with regional allies, by projecting and sustaining US power in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs). The Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) redefined this requirement as the ability to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars" (MTWs). ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/mtw.htm )
In addition to this the military has the ability to fight around 2-4 regional conflicts, and other small operations. The problem is does N. Korea realise this ? Any war against it would not be an invasion - in my opinion - but pinpoint operations aimed at destroying it's developing nuclear capability, because without that there is no problem anyway. With adequate intelligence - precise locations of the material and sites, plus key personnel's living quarters/homes - then the nuclear threat could easily be destoryed. Trouble is how would N Korea react, and other asian and middle eastern countries would see it as a highly aggressive act.
It could be an example of brinkmanship - coming at the same time as Iraq - but I think that the rest of the world that doesn't want to see a nuclear N Korea has to be ready to prevent it going nuclear. Diplomacy must be the first option - and hopefully N Korea will back down, but they will not give up on nuclear capability or wanting the South back at some stage.
War with Iraq is, to me, somewhat undecided. Large numbers of troops and equipment are being moved up but this could be just a visible threat more than true preparations for war now. World opinion is faltering because the public, and many countries, seem to require hundreds of deaths and a large smoking crater to remind them of some things. There is, of course, always the remotest chance that Iraq has no WMDS, but I don't believe it. Why ? The UN has proven itself inept before, and Iraq has had a long long time to hide the evidence. There is the issue of the USA and UK sharing intelligence with the UN, but I don't think anyone will be too eager to do so because, whilst the sites could hold the necessary evidence, it would reveal intel to Iraq - not good if war is imminent. If it does kick off then its going to be in the first 3 - 4 months of the year because of weather, deployments e.t.c.
I don't think that the US (at least the government at any rate) are scared of Iraq. I think they are fairly confident that they'll triumph easily if they do go to war, which is why they seem so urgent to get it over with and look like the brave heroes.
One thing that puzzles me is that both the US and UK are going on a witch-hunt to find these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but surely they have just as much right to them as us? If they can't have them, how can we justify our own weapons? This is either a good point or I've missed something along the way.
One thing that puzzles me is that both the US and UK are going on a witch-hunt to find these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but surely they have just as much right to them as us? If they can't have them, how can we justify our own weapons? This is either a good point or I've missed something along the way.
Blank wrote:
> One thing that puzzles me is that both the US and UK are going on a
> witch-hunt to find these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but
> surely they have just as much right to them as us? If they can't have
> them, how can we justify our own weapons? This is either a good point
> or I've missed something along the way.
I think you've missed something.
Whilst the USA, and UK, both develop and store WMD's - many in secret and not open to outside inspection - they are part of a stated policy option where they are used solely as retaliatory options, this means we do not use them against someone who has not used them against us in the first place - in effect it is the MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy of the cold war all over again. It says to nations like Iraq that, sure, they could smuggle a suitcase nuke into London, but we'll turn Baghdad into a several hundred year exclusion zone. The USA has now slightly altered this policy to allow pre emptive attacks on those who are imminent to attack the USA or it's allies.
In addition, the USA has only used a WMD twice in a military situation - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. contrary to popular opinion the Japanese government was warned before the first bomb that a new weapon would be used against them if they did not surrender, and again after the first attack. The UK has never used them in a military situation, or offensively.
Now look at Iraq's past history - used chemical and bio weapons against Iran - admittedly some of these were supplied by the US upon Iraq's request, and in exchange for Soviet captured weaponry the Iranians had - and again against the Kurdish population with over 100 000 deaths, in addition it threated to launch chem and bio armed scuds at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was not involved in the Gulf War, in addition the UN itself documents at least three attempts to buy nuclear material - once in Russa and twice in Africa, by Iraqi agents, in secret. This evidence alone is perhaps enough to see how Iraq should not have such weapons.
Then there is another aspect - commmand and control of the weapons. Discount those that could be passed to third parties for terrorist attacks against Israel and the Western allies, and focus on the battlefield ones for delivering WMD's. Currently Iraq's arsenal has a range estimated to be able to hit just into mainland Europe, and it is developing a missile for great range well into mainland europe. That's a long range for defensive use isn't it ? Especially when the countries main enemies are all in the same region and pretty few anyway. Then, how are they launched ? Well Saddam tells the respective commanders what to do, and they do it. Simple eh ? So he can order a SCUD full of smallpox, right slap bang into Israel, just like that - he'd be mad to do so, but he could, and anyone who tries to counter that decision has to watch out for the republian guard who are ferociously loyal to Saddam, and act as bodyguards to those who could counter Saddam. Now, lets look at what happens in America or the UK if either leader decides he fancies lobbing a nuclear armed missile at somebody. He/she has to be sure of political backing, as well as public support to some degree - democracy is a right pain in the ar$e isn' it ? *sarcasm* - and then has to authorise it, at the same time another official must authorise it simultaneously, via voice activation that counters anyone being forced to say the words, as well as fingerprint recognition. If the official will not do it then it cannot be done, and anothr must be asked - if no one will do it the attack cannot happen. With USA and UK weapons the launch cannot, in any way, happen or even commence, without authorisation, yet in Iraq there are no such safeguards except for Saddam's wrath at disobedience...
There's many more reasons, but this is just a few of the arguments to why Iraq cannot have what we have in this area - basically it comes down to responsibility and intention.
> One thing that puzzles me is that both the US and UK are going on a
> witch-hunt to find these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but
> surely they have just as much right to them as us? If they can't have
> them, how can we justify our own weapons? This is either a good point
> or I've missed something along the way.
I think you've missed something.
Whilst the USA, and UK, both develop and store WMD's - many in secret and not open to outside inspection - they are part of a stated policy option where they are used solely as retaliatory options, this means we do not use them against someone who has not used them against us in the first place - in effect it is the MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy of the cold war all over again. It says to nations like Iraq that, sure, they could smuggle a suitcase nuke into London, but we'll turn Baghdad into a several hundred year exclusion zone. The USA has now slightly altered this policy to allow pre emptive attacks on those who are imminent to attack the USA or it's allies.
In addition, the USA has only used a WMD twice in a military situation - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. contrary to popular opinion the Japanese government was warned before the first bomb that a new weapon would be used against them if they did not surrender, and again after the first attack. The UK has never used them in a military situation, or offensively.
Now look at Iraq's past history - used chemical and bio weapons against Iran - admittedly some of these were supplied by the US upon Iraq's request, and in exchange for Soviet captured weaponry the Iranians had - and again against the Kurdish population with over 100 000 deaths, in addition it threated to launch chem and bio armed scuds at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was not involved in the Gulf War, in addition the UN itself documents at least three attempts to buy nuclear material - once in Russa and twice in Africa, by Iraqi agents, in secret. This evidence alone is perhaps enough to see how Iraq should not have such weapons.
Then there is another aspect - commmand and control of the weapons. Discount those that could be passed to third parties for terrorist attacks against Israel and the Western allies, and focus on the battlefield ones for delivering WMD's. Currently Iraq's arsenal has a range estimated to be able to hit just into mainland Europe, and it is developing a missile for great range well into mainland europe. That's a long range for defensive use isn't it ? Especially when the countries main enemies are all in the same region and pretty few anyway. Then, how are they launched ? Well Saddam tells the respective commanders what to do, and they do it. Simple eh ? So he can order a SCUD full of smallpox, right slap bang into Israel, just like that - he'd be mad to do so, but he could, and anyone who tries to counter that decision has to watch out for the republian guard who are ferociously loyal to Saddam, and act as bodyguards to those who could counter Saddam. Now, lets look at what happens in America or the UK if either leader decides he fancies lobbing a nuclear armed missile at somebody. He/she has to be sure of political backing, as well as public support to some degree - democracy is a right pain in the ar$e isn' it ? *sarcasm* - and then has to authorise it, at the same time another official must authorise it simultaneously, via voice activation that counters anyone being forced to say the words, as well as fingerprint recognition. If the official will not do it then it cannot be done, and anothr must be asked - if no one will do it the attack cannot happen. With USA and UK weapons the launch cannot, in any way, happen or even commence, without authorisation, yet in Iraq there are no such safeguards except for Saddam's wrath at disobedience...
There's many more reasons, but this is just a few of the arguments to why Iraq cannot have what we have in this area - basically it comes down to responsibility and intention.
Belldandy wrote:
> The USA has now slightly altered this policy to allow pre emptive attacks
> on those who are imminent to attack the USA or it's allies.
But we can't prove that they are about to attack - the only proof we could have is if they attack afterwards, which is bound to happen in retaliation anyway. In that respect we are just unfoundedly attacking them first, giving them the higher moral stand point, plus an excuse to attack us.
> Now look at Iraq's past history - used chemical and bio weapons
> against Iran - admittedly some of these were supplied by the US upon
> Iraq's request, and in exchange for Soviet captured weaponry the
> Iranians had - and again against the Kurdish population with over 100
> 000 deaths, in addition it threated to launch chem and bio armed scuds
> at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was not involved in the Gulf
> War, in addition the UN itself documents at least three attempts to
> buy nuclear material - once in Russa and twice in Africa, by Iraqi
> agents, in secret. This evidence alone is perhaps enough to see how
> Iraq should not have such weapons.
Well maybe, but it still seems to me like pot calling the kettle black. We have these weapons at our disposal and then tell others off for having them. Sure, it's nice to tell ourselves that it's just defensive, to keep people in line etc etc, but a pre-emptive strike? That's crap. Just think about it from their perspective. The foreigners develop dangerous weapons, and when we do they attack us, calling it a pre-emptive strike. Back from our perspective, would we look at it as a pre-emptive strike if they attacked us now? After all, we are thinking of attacking them. So we would then need a pre-emptive strike on their pre-emptive strike. It's a catch-22.
> The USA has now slightly altered this policy to allow pre emptive attacks
> on those who are imminent to attack the USA or it's allies.
But we can't prove that they are about to attack - the only proof we could have is if they attack afterwards, which is bound to happen in retaliation anyway. In that respect we are just unfoundedly attacking them first, giving them the higher moral stand point, plus an excuse to attack us.
> Now look at Iraq's past history - used chemical and bio weapons
> against Iran - admittedly some of these were supplied by the US upon
> Iraq's request, and in exchange for Soviet captured weaponry the
> Iranians had - and again against the Kurdish population with over 100
> 000 deaths, in addition it threated to launch chem and bio armed scuds
> at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was not involved in the Gulf
> War, in addition the UN itself documents at least three attempts to
> buy nuclear material - once in Russa and twice in Africa, by Iraqi
> agents, in secret. This evidence alone is perhaps enough to see how
> Iraq should not have such weapons.
Well maybe, but it still seems to me like pot calling the kettle black. We have these weapons at our disposal and then tell others off for having them. Sure, it's nice to tell ourselves that it's just defensive, to keep people in line etc etc, but a pre-emptive strike? That's crap. Just think about it from their perspective. The foreigners develop dangerous weapons, and when we do they attack us, calling it a pre-emptive strike. Back from our perspective, would we look at it as a pre-emptive strike if they attacked us now? After all, we are thinking of attacking them. So we would then need a pre-emptive strike on their pre-emptive strike. It's a catch-22.
Blank wrote:
> But we can't prove that they are about to attack - the only proof we
> could have is if they attack afterwards, which is bound to happen in
> retaliation anyway. In that respect we are just unfoundedly attacking
> them first, giving them the higher moral stand point, plus an excuse
> to attack us.
Actually, if any nation is gearing up to launch an attack there are a lot of very obvious signs that will give it away - remember this new policy applies to nations and not terrorist groups. Say that, sometime in the future, N.Korea is getting ready to launch a nuclear attack on the South. Firstly all military leave will be cancelled, reservists will be called up, there will be some kind of severance with the South in weeks running up to the attack and a removal of diplomatic staff, missiles will be put into readiness mode (this causes a greater generation of heat which thermal imaging can detect), naval vessles will be leaving known ports, and so on. A nation cannot launch a WMD attack from a standing start.
With reference to Iraq, we can only have reasonable suspicion and Iraq's past history - plus I would not worry yourself about a retaliatory attack - if we go in (not certain) then there will be no chance of such a thing.
> Well maybe, but it still seems to me like pot calling the kettle
> black. We have these weapons at our disposal and then tell others off
> for having them. Sure, it's nice to tell ourselves that it's just
> defensive, to keep people in line etc etc, but a pre-emptive strike?
But there are big differences in offensive and defensive weapons systems, and we have markedly better control over them and their use. The Uk's nuclear deterrant is submarine based - and no one knows where these submarines are apart from our allies. The sole aim of them is that, should the UK be attacked, they pop up and launch. Were they to be an offensive option then we'd make no attempt to be secret about their locations. Same goes for the US deterrant. Whilst they have land based and sea based missiles, the greatest deterrant are the F117 and B2 squadrons which are on permenant 5 minute go status. They can react faster than any attack on their bases, and split up into groups, in planes designed to avoid all countermeasures and reach the target. Again, defensive weapon systems.
> That's crap. Just think about it from their perspective. The
> foreigners develop dangerous weapons, and when we do they attack us,
> calling it a pre-emptive strike. Back from our perspective, would we
> look at it as a pre-emptive strike if they attacked us now? After all,
> we are thinking of attacking them. So we would then need a pre-emptive
> strike on their pre-emptive strike. It's a catch-22.
Hang on, have we actually attacked anyone, ever, without diplomacy or warning ? Er...nope, strange that. A pre emptive strike is without warning - like the Invasion of Kuwait, Pearl Harbour, the World Trade Center and Pentagon e.t.c. Not the end of a failed diplomatic process where one side makes no attempt to avoid war e.g. Iraq in 1991, the Taliban in 2001. In both these examples those who could have averted war sat back and insisted they could take on an allied force, and gues what ? They couldn't, and died in droves because of that assumption.
The UK and USA WMD stores mainly came about because of the parallel development of Russia's own weapons during the Cold War, though nuclear weapons began during the Second World War where they were the only way to ensure ultimate victory - and before anyone moans about this the Germans we're just as dedicated to finding the technology, the only downside being most of their top scientists in this field had fled the country...
Ultimately, men like Saddam engage in conflict safe in the knowledge that they themselves have little to lose - and that those who fight against them will be hampered and distracted justifying their actions to their own people.
Sure, we do not want a situation where the military in the UK has carte blanche, but I don't think showing our troops a little support now and then would harm things ? Whether you agree with what they do or not, they signed up to defend this country, and freedom, wherever they were asked to, and not just defend it for some of us, but all of us.
~~Belldandy~~
> But we can't prove that they are about to attack - the only proof we
> could have is if they attack afterwards, which is bound to happen in
> retaliation anyway. In that respect we are just unfoundedly attacking
> them first, giving them the higher moral stand point, plus an excuse
> to attack us.
Actually, if any nation is gearing up to launch an attack there are a lot of very obvious signs that will give it away - remember this new policy applies to nations and not terrorist groups. Say that, sometime in the future, N.Korea is getting ready to launch a nuclear attack on the South. Firstly all military leave will be cancelled, reservists will be called up, there will be some kind of severance with the South in weeks running up to the attack and a removal of diplomatic staff, missiles will be put into readiness mode (this causes a greater generation of heat which thermal imaging can detect), naval vessles will be leaving known ports, and so on. A nation cannot launch a WMD attack from a standing start.
With reference to Iraq, we can only have reasonable suspicion and Iraq's past history - plus I would not worry yourself about a retaliatory attack - if we go in (not certain) then there will be no chance of such a thing.
> Well maybe, but it still seems to me like pot calling the kettle
> black. We have these weapons at our disposal and then tell others off
> for having them. Sure, it's nice to tell ourselves that it's just
> defensive, to keep people in line etc etc, but a pre-emptive strike?
But there are big differences in offensive and defensive weapons systems, and we have markedly better control over them and their use. The Uk's nuclear deterrant is submarine based - and no one knows where these submarines are apart from our allies. The sole aim of them is that, should the UK be attacked, they pop up and launch. Were they to be an offensive option then we'd make no attempt to be secret about their locations. Same goes for the US deterrant. Whilst they have land based and sea based missiles, the greatest deterrant are the F117 and B2 squadrons which are on permenant 5 minute go status. They can react faster than any attack on their bases, and split up into groups, in planes designed to avoid all countermeasures and reach the target. Again, defensive weapon systems.
> That's crap. Just think about it from their perspective. The
> foreigners develop dangerous weapons, and when we do they attack us,
> calling it a pre-emptive strike. Back from our perspective, would we
> look at it as a pre-emptive strike if they attacked us now? After all,
> we are thinking of attacking them. So we would then need a pre-emptive
> strike on their pre-emptive strike. It's a catch-22.
Hang on, have we actually attacked anyone, ever, without diplomacy or warning ? Er...nope, strange that. A pre emptive strike is without warning - like the Invasion of Kuwait, Pearl Harbour, the World Trade Center and Pentagon e.t.c. Not the end of a failed diplomatic process where one side makes no attempt to avoid war e.g. Iraq in 1991, the Taliban in 2001. In both these examples those who could have averted war sat back and insisted they could take on an allied force, and gues what ? They couldn't, and died in droves because of that assumption.
The UK and USA WMD stores mainly came about because of the parallel development of Russia's own weapons during the Cold War, though nuclear weapons began during the Second World War where they were the only way to ensure ultimate victory - and before anyone moans about this the Germans we're just as dedicated to finding the technology, the only downside being most of their top scientists in this field had fled the country...
Ultimately, men like Saddam engage in conflict safe in the knowledge that they themselves have little to lose - and that those who fight against them will be hampered and distracted justifying their actions to their own people.
Sure, we do not want a situation where the military in the UK has carte blanche, but I don't think showing our troops a little support now and then would harm things ? Whether you agree with what they do or not, they signed up to defend this country, and freedom, wherever they were asked to, and not just defend it for some of us, but all of us.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> With reference to Iraq, we can only have reasonable suspicion and
> Iraq's past history - plus I would not worry yourself about a
> retaliatory attack - if we go in (not certain) then there will be no
> chance of such a thing.
If there is no chance of Iraq retaliating (and I agree with you that there isn't) then doesn't this make a mockery of the upcoming war being a defensive one? If Iraq poses no threat at all to our population then how do we justify an attack?
> With reference to Iraq, we can only have reasonable suspicion and
> Iraq's past history - plus I would not worry yourself about a
> retaliatory attack - if we go in (not certain) then there will be no
> chance of such a thing.
If there is no chance of Iraq retaliating (and I agree with you that there isn't) then doesn't this make a mockery of the upcoming war being a defensive one? If Iraq poses no threat at all to our population then how do we justify an attack?
Page: