The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> The case for this is, as I suspect you well know, theoretical. Iraq is
> developing WMDs and has done in the past. If, on September the 10th,
> Someone has said "lets attack the Taliban regime and Al Queda in
> Afghanistan" then it would have been argued there was no
> justification of proven link they were going to be involved in an
> attack on the USA.
The difference between the Taliban and Iraq being that Bin Laden based himself in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. The Taliban sympathised with Al Queda's aims and methods, and provided them with shelter and government protection. All of which was common knowledge *before* 9/11. Neither you nor anyone else has any evidence that Iraq has funded, armed or even sympathised with Al Queda's terrorism. But still you keep mentioning Al Queda and Iraq in the same breath in the hope that the laudable aim of fighting terror becomes entwined with an imperialist war on Iraq.
Right now, your logic goes like this: we have no evidence of Iraqi links with Islamic terrorism, therefore we must attack. We also have no evidence that France, Brazil or Nigeria are linked to Al Queda: should we attack them too?
> Incidentally, politicians would be the very last people to know about
> any such link.
> And again, if you want to go
> by what politicians say for inteligence then I'm wordless. Only the
> Prime Minister and a few of his cabinet have the real info, and even
> then they just have summaries. The real data is with the intel
> services, which we will not see in our lifetimes.
So your entire argument is based on information that nobody has access to? This sounds like a tacit admission that the argument for war is bankrupt in its current form.
Are you suggesting that our politicians aren't pressing for war for the reasons they claim in public? Is there a smoking gun that the weak minded public must be shielded from?
> Nope. Iraq has some chem/bio agents right now, and the SCUDS to get
> them to targets in the region.
Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from? I don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither do you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
> Where were
> the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until
> there's good PR and press coverage to be had.
Mostly protesting about the sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, and left Saddam more firmly entrenched in power than ever before. A more interesting question is, where were the anti-war movement 15-20 years ago? The answer is protesting about Saddam gassing his own people in Halabja. And where were the pro-war crew at this time? Why, selling Saddam arms of course!
> The case for this is, as I suspect you well know, theoretical. Iraq is
> developing WMDs and has done in the past. If, on September the 10th,
> Someone has said "lets attack the Taliban regime and Al Queda in
> Afghanistan" then it would have been argued there was no
> justification of proven link they were going to be involved in an
> attack on the USA.
The difference between the Taliban and Iraq being that Bin Laden based himself in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. The Taliban sympathised with Al Queda's aims and methods, and provided them with shelter and government protection. All of which was common knowledge *before* 9/11. Neither you nor anyone else has any evidence that Iraq has funded, armed or even sympathised with Al Queda's terrorism. But still you keep mentioning Al Queda and Iraq in the same breath in the hope that the laudable aim of fighting terror becomes entwined with an imperialist war on Iraq.
Right now, your logic goes like this: we have no evidence of Iraqi links with Islamic terrorism, therefore we must attack. We also have no evidence that France, Brazil or Nigeria are linked to Al Queda: should we attack them too?
> Incidentally, politicians would be the very last people to know about
> any such link.
> And again, if you want to go
> by what politicians say for inteligence then I'm wordless. Only the
> Prime Minister and a few of his cabinet have the real info, and even
> then they just have summaries. The real data is with the intel
> services, which we will not see in our lifetimes.
So your entire argument is based on information that nobody has access to? This sounds like a tacit admission that the argument for war is bankrupt in its current form.
Are you suggesting that our politicians aren't pressing for war for the reasons they claim in public? Is there a smoking gun that the weak minded public must be shielded from?
> Nope. Iraq has some chem/bio agents right now, and the SCUDS to get
> them to targets in the region.
Again, I'm confused. Where are you getting this information from? I don't know if Iraq has chemical or biological weapons. But neither do you because, deep breath, you are not a weapons inspector.
> Where were
> the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until
> there's good PR and press coverage to be had.
Mostly protesting about the sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, and left Saddam more firmly entrenched in power than ever before. A more interesting question is, where were the anti-war movement 15-20 years ago? The answer is protesting about Saddam gassing his own people in Halabja. And where were the pro-war crew at this time? Why, selling Saddam arms of course!
Felt like a rant on one thing, and this seems like the right place:
The government dropping incinuations of a link between Al Qu'eda and Iraq without showing anything to back it up is one thing, but the recent playing up of the risk not just of Saddam using his (alleged) WMD's, but of the risk of them falling into terrorist hands (I wonder just who they could mean here), again without any explaination or evidence, seems pretty worthy of my contempt.
Just cheaply dropping it with their usual spiel, planting the acorns of fear and hate.
The government dropping incinuations of a link between Al Qu'eda and Iraq without showing anything to back it up is one thing, but the recent playing up of the risk not just of Saddam using his (alleged) WMD's, but of the risk of them falling into terrorist hands (I wonder just who they could mean here), again without any explaination or evidence, seems pretty worthy of my contempt.
Just cheaply dropping it with their usual spiel, planting the acorns of fear and hate.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy, you said a pre emptive attack is one with no warning - I'm
> not sure what you mean. Attacks giving warning, or warning of an
> imminent attack on the pre-emptive attackers? Just to clear this up
> before I say anything.
A pre emptive attack is one taken against an enemy to prevent an attack by them on you. In relation to the US policy, there must be clear danger of an attack being imminent. As the policy only relate to nation states, it does not apply to WMD's employed by terrorists - unless those same terrorists clearly received support from a foreign power. This policy effectively prevents another nation planning a surprise attack on the USA because, as I've outlined, a nations military cannot hide preparations for war or easily dismiss them.
Whilst you can argue that a country like N.Korea could legitimately pre emptive strike the USA it would need to prove the USA was going to threaten it in a way the rest of the world would believe - not that it would matter because if that scenario ever played out N.Korea would be one big no go area.
Effectively pre emptive strikes come down to intelligence and a credible threat - not an imagined or idealistic one. Sure, you can do a Pearl Harbour all over again, but be prepared to die not soon after.
An attack generally has some warning - such as operation Desert Storm in 1991 where Saddam was warned that he must cease and desist or be met with force.
Yawn, its late and my head hurts.
~~Belldandy~~
> Belldandy, you said a pre emptive attack is one with no warning - I'm
> not sure what you mean. Attacks giving warning, or warning of an
> imminent attack on the pre-emptive attackers? Just to clear this up
> before I say anything.
A pre emptive attack is one taken against an enemy to prevent an attack by them on you. In relation to the US policy, there must be clear danger of an attack being imminent. As the policy only relate to nation states, it does not apply to WMD's employed by terrorists - unless those same terrorists clearly received support from a foreign power. This policy effectively prevents another nation planning a surprise attack on the USA because, as I've outlined, a nations military cannot hide preparations for war or easily dismiss them.
Whilst you can argue that a country like N.Korea could legitimately pre emptive strike the USA it would need to prove the USA was going to threaten it in a way the rest of the world would believe - not that it would matter because if that scenario ever played out N.Korea would be one big no go area.
Effectively pre emptive strikes come down to intelligence and a credible threat - not an imagined or idealistic one. Sure, you can do a Pearl Harbour all over again, but be prepared to die not soon after.
An attack generally has some warning - such as operation Desert Storm in 1991 where Saddam was warned that he must cease and desist or be met with force.
Yawn, its late and my head hurts.
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> If the case for war with Iraq boils down to links with terrorist
> groups then the hawks are in a whole lot of trouble. Not one credible
> politician has accused Iraq of being a terrorist nation. Links with
> Al Queda? There is not a shred of evidence for it; if there was then
> our politicians would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The case for this is, as I suspect you well know, theoretical. Iraq is developing WMDs and has done in the past. If, on September the 10th, Someone has said "lets attack the Taliban regime and Al Queda in Afghanistan" then it would have been argued there was no justification of proven link they were going to be involved in an attack on the USA. It is too late once you've proven the link. Incidentally, politicians would be the very last people to know about any such link. There is evidence of link to the Palestinian terrorist groups though - and in one case broadcast footage of Iraqi officials giving money to suicide bombers families as a reward. And Iraq has been branded a rogue nation - by Tony Blair, Bush, Jack Straq, Donald Rumsfeld, and many more.
> And the links with Palestinian terrorist groups don't seem to amount
> to much more than a few posthumous payments to the families of suicide
> bombers - good PR for Saddam, but hardly a driving force behind
> terrorism. This is pretty weak stuff; so no wonder the politicians
> have kept quiet on that front as well.
That's your opinion, but its hardly weak. Does Saddam give the money to Palestinians who don't kill Israelis ? No. You call that weak ?
> So Iraq is not capable of attacking the US or the UK, the two
> countries currently pressing for war. By the admission of our own
> politicians, Iraq is not supplying or funding Islamic terrorism. In
> fact Iraq's secular regime is ideologically opposed to the likes of Al
> Queda, who favour religious rather than military dictatorship.
It is capable of attacking but not directly to our land unless via a non traditional method. Iraq can hit Israel, Kuwait, and many coalition troops right now with these weapons. Don't say these places are not in our interest because they are. And again, if you want to go by what politicians say for inteligence then I'm wordless. Only the Prime Minister and a few of his cabinet have the real info, and even then they just have summaries. The real data is with the intel services, which we will not see in our lifetimes.
> This is opinion rather than fact. The people with the best idea of
> the truth of this statement are the weapons inspectors, who haven't
> reported to the UN yet.
Nope. Iraq has some chem/bio agents right now, and the SCUDS to get them to targets in the region. In fact Iraq has so much that its officially announced its "lost" some of it, not to worry though because its only a bit of smallpox, anthrax e.t.c. Nice harmless stuff eh ? Quite frankly the UN weapons inspectors are there to parade around in their 4WD's and generally annoy the Iraqi's. They cannot hope to discover what they seek, unless their is some kind of miracle.
> OK, so now those who oppose war are mindless tools of Saddam? This is
> just delusional.
Think about it though ? Why is it so vital to many that Saddam stay in power ? Why should anyone care about letting Iraq have WMD's given its past history ? Okay, by opposing the war you've got all this student inspried "lets oppose capitalism\corporations\business" crap, but at the end of the day why ? The Iraqi people ? Where were the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until there's good PR and press coverage to be had. Sure, oppose the war, but remember that,even with those like me who would back a war, it is still the last option to us. If diplomacy can work all the better, but there cannot be any more false peaces.
~~Belldandy~~
> If the case for war with Iraq boils down to links with terrorist
> groups then the hawks are in a whole lot of trouble. Not one credible
> politician has accused Iraq of being a terrorist nation. Links with
> Al Queda? There is not a shred of evidence for it; if there was then
> our politicians would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The case for this is, as I suspect you well know, theoretical. Iraq is developing WMDs and has done in the past. If, on September the 10th, Someone has said "lets attack the Taliban regime and Al Queda in Afghanistan" then it would have been argued there was no justification of proven link they were going to be involved in an attack on the USA. It is too late once you've proven the link. Incidentally, politicians would be the very last people to know about any such link. There is evidence of link to the Palestinian terrorist groups though - and in one case broadcast footage of Iraqi officials giving money to suicide bombers families as a reward. And Iraq has been branded a rogue nation - by Tony Blair, Bush, Jack Straq, Donald Rumsfeld, and many more.
> And the links with Palestinian terrorist groups don't seem to amount
> to much more than a few posthumous payments to the families of suicide
> bombers - good PR for Saddam, but hardly a driving force behind
> terrorism. This is pretty weak stuff; so no wonder the politicians
> have kept quiet on that front as well.
That's your opinion, but its hardly weak. Does Saddam give the money to Palestinians who don't kill Israelis ? No. You call that weak ?
> So Iraq is not capable of attacking the US or the UK, the two
> countries currently pressing for war. By the admission of our own
> politicians, Iraq is not supplying or funding Islamic terrorism. In
> fact Iraq's secular regime is ideologically opposed to the likes of Al
> Queda, who favour religious rather than military dictatorship.
It is capable of attacking but not directly to our land unless via a non traditional method. Iraq can hit Israel, Kuwait, and many coalition troops right now with these weapons. Don't say these places are not in our interest because they are. And again, if you want to go by what politicians say for inteligence then I'm wordless. Only the Prime Minister and a few of his cabinet have the real info, and even then they just have summaries. The real data is with the intel services, which we will not see in our lifetimes.
> This is opinion rather than fact. The people with the best idea of
> the truth of this statement are the weapons inspectors, who haven't
> reported to the UN yet.
Nope. Iraq has some chem/bio agents right now, and the SCUDS to get them to targets in the region. In fact Iraq has so much that its officially announced its "lost" some of it, not to worry though because its only a bit of smallpox, anthrax e.t.c. Nice harmless stuff eh ? Quite frankly the UN weapons inspectors are there to parade around in their 4WD's and generally annoy the Iraqi's. They cannot hope to discover what they seek, unless their is some kind of miracle.
> OK, so now those who oppose war are mindless tools of Saddam? This is
> just delusional.
Think about it though ? Why is it so vital to many that Saddam stay in power ? Why should anyone care about letting Iraq have WMD's given its past history ? Okay, by opposing the war you've got all this student inspried "lets oppose capitalism\corporations\business" crap, but at the end of the day why ? The Iraqi people ? Where were the anti war campaign the past 11 years ? Strangely absent until there's good PR and press coverage to be had. Sure, oppose the war, but remember that,even with those like me who would back a war, it is still the last option to us. If diplomacy can work all the better, but there cannot be any more false peaces.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> The greatest fear is that - with
> IRaq's association with the Palestinian groups, an almost certainly AL
> Queda and god knows who else, that the WMDS they have will be given or
> sold to such a group, allowing a terrorist attack.
If the case for war with Iraq boils down to links with terrorist groups then the hawks are in a whole lot of trouble. Not one credible politician has accused Iraq of being a terrorist nation. Links with Al Queda? There is not a shred of evidence for it; if there was then our politicians would be shouting it from the rooftops.
And the links with Palestinian terrorist groups don't seem to amount to much more than a few posthumous payments to the families of suicide bombers - good PR for Saddam, but hardly a driving force behind terrorism. This is pretty weak stuff; so no wonder the politicians have kept quiet on that front as well.
So Iraq is not capable of attacking the US or the UK, the two countries currently pressing for war. By the admission of our own politicians, Iraq is not supplying or funding Islamic terrorism. In fact Iraq's secular regime is ideologically opposed to the likes of Al Queda, who favour religious rather than military dictatorship.
I'm still confused as to how this justifies an attack.
> In summary; Iraq hs the ability to attack an attacking force, and
> others in the region, right now with chem/bio agents.
This is opinion rather than fact. The people with the best idea of the truth of this statement are the weapons inspectors, who haven't reported to the UN yet.
> The only
> way to stand a chance to win is to change the conflict's nature to the
> one we see right now - a media one where Iraq hopes to use public
> political opinion, and existing national differences in Europe and
> elsewhere, to delay and deter.
OK, so now those who oppose war are mindless tools of Saddam? This is just delusional.
> The greatest fear is that - with
> IRaq's association with the Palestinian groups, an almost certainly AL
> Queda and god knows who else, that the WMDS they have will be given or
> sold to such a group, allowing a terrorist attack.
If the case for war with Iraq boils down to links with terrorist groups then the hawks are in a whole lot of trouble. Not one credible politician has accused Iraq of being a terrorist nation. Links with Al Queda? There is not a shred of evidence for it; if there was then our politicians would be shouting it from the rooftops.
And the links with Palestinian terrorist groups don't seem to amount to much more than a few posthumous payments to the families of suicide bombers - good PR for Saddam, but hardly a driving force behind terrorism. This is pretty weak stuff; so no wonder the politicians have kept quiet on that front as well.
So Iraq is not capable of attacking the US or the UK, the two countries currently pressing for war. By the admission of our own politicians, Iraq is not supplying or funding Islamic terrorism. In fact Iraq's secular regime is ideologically opposed to the likes of Al Queda, who favour religious rather than military dictatorship.
I'm still confused as to how this justifies an attack.
> In summary; Iraq hs the ability to attack an attacking force, and
> others in the region, right now with chem/bio agents.
This is opinion rather than fact. The people with the best idea of the truth of this statement are the weapons inspectors, who haven't reported to the UN yet.
> The only
> way to stand a chance to win is to change the conflict's nature to the
> one we see right now - a media one where Iraq hopes to use public
> political opinion, and existing national differences in Europe and
> elsewhere, to delay and deter.
OK, so now those who oppose war are mindless tools of Saddam? This is just delusional.
unknown kernel wrote:
> 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?
Because, despite what the media is pushing out, common sense tells us that the war cannot happen without two things;
1) Proof of concealed WMDs.
2) UN backing.
Okay, maybe not 2), but certainly 1). Iraq cannot hit mainland Europe - or at least where it wants to hit, so it cannot attack Europe. So Israel would be the next best thing in terms of Iraq being able to attack conventionally with WMDS. The greatest fear is that - with IRaq's association with the Palestinian groups, an almost certainly AL Queda and god knows who else, that the WMDS they have will be given or sold to such a group, allowing a terrorist attack. Iraq's documented attempts to acquire material are evidence that Iraq is not another N.Korea (which wants to develop the tech) but simply wants the tech ASAP. So the threat to us, back in England, is minor, Israel however tested it's new missile defence system today and has been running emergency drills for chem/bio attacks since December.
Iraq, once it has WMD's fully developed, becomes a massive threat - especially with increased missile range predicted towards 2010, maybe earlier. We do know that an attack NOW can destroy any chance of Iraq getting this deadly technology - bearing in mind its past history os using what it has had.
In summary; Iraq hs the ability to attack an attacking force, and others in the region, right now with chem/bio agents. If it hits Israel then wave goodbye to peace in the region forever. However, Saddam will not make a first move whilst the UN and the the world remains uncertain as to action to take - therefore the only initial danger is from terrorist groups acquiring the material from Iraq. Therefore, we can justifiably attack once we have evidence as we have previously required IRaq to admit to us all such weapons - attempts to hide any - when Iraq has agreed to our request - indicate less than honest uses for it.
Should we attack, the first assault - by air, sea and special forces, must be ruthless so as to prevent any retaliation. We don't just kick the facilities doors in, we level them and everything to do with them.
Remove Saddam's weapons and he's nothing, and so is his army. The Gulf War demonstrated what a lot of people suspected. Engage the US and its allies in a conventional war in the 21st century and you'll lose - horribly. Our overwhelming technology, mechanisation, weaponry, and military, backed by intel and other resources, ensures this. The only way to stand a chance to win is to change the conflict's nature to the one we see right now - a media one where Iraq hopes to use public political opinion, and existing national differences in Europe and elsewhere, to delay and deter.
~~Belldandy~~
> 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?
Because, despite what the media is pushing out, common sense tells us that the war cannot happen without two things;
1) Proof of concealed WMDs.
2) UN backing.
Okay, maybe not 2), but certainly 1). Iraq cannot hit mainland Europe - or at least where it wants to hit, so it cannot attack Europe. So Israel would be the next best thing in terms of Iraq being able to attack conventionally with WMDS. The greatest fear is that - with IRaq's association with the Palestinian groups, an almost certainly AL Queda and god knows who else, that the WMDS they have will be given or sold to such a group, allowing a terrorist attack. Iraq's documented attempts to acquire material are evidence that Iraq is not another N.Korea (which wants to develop the tech) but simply wants the tech ASAP. So the threat to us, back in England, is minor, Israel however tested it's new missile defence system today and has been running emergency drills for chem/bio attacks since December.
Iraq, once it has WMD's fully developed, becomes a massive threat - especially with increased missile range predicted towards 2010, maybe earlier. We do know that an attack NOW can destroy any chance of Iraq getting this deadly technology - bearing in mind its past history os using what it has had.
In summary; Iraq hs the ability to attack an attacking force, and others in the region, right now with chem/bio agents. If it hits Israel then wave goodbye to peace in the region forever. However, Saddam will not make a first move whilst the UN and the the world remains uncertain as to action to take - therefore the only initial danger is from terrorist groups acquiring the material from Iraq. Therefore, we can justifiably attack once we have evidence as we have previously required IRaq to admit to us all such weapons - attempts to hide any - when Iraq has agreed to our request - indicate less than honest uses for it.
Should we attack, the first assault - by air, sea and special forces, must be ruthless so as to prevent any retaliation. We don't just kick the facilities doors in, we level them and everything to do with them.
Remove Saddam's weapons and he's nothing, and so is his army. The Gulf War demonstrated what a lot of people suspected. Engage the US and its allies in a conventional war in the 21st century and you'll lose - horribly. Our overwhelming technology, mechanisation, weaponry, and military, backed by intel and other resources, ensures this. The only way to stand a chance to win is to change the conflict's nature to the one we see right now - a media one where Iraq hopes to use public political opinion, and existing national differences in Europe and elsewhere, to delay and deter.
~~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?
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:
> 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.
Page: