The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So, the much argued about, criticised, applauded, etc War on Terror (TM)...
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
At first a success with the removal of the Taliban and large elements of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and the capture of various cells and individuals involved in the devestating September 11th attacks themselves, and involved in plotting future attacks which were foiled.
The Anthrax scare in America following the September 11th attacks was a stark warning of events in the future, but I'm digressing here.
Following September 11th the world's leaders, minus Saddam Hussein who I don't think we could have lumped under the title 'world's leaders' even if he had criticised the attacks, came together and generally insisted that:
A) We, whoever "we" are, would win this new War on Terror.
B) We would not let the attacks destroy our way of life - again who "we" was and which way of life this was referring to was left unsaid.
C) Every nation would co-operate.
Despite very real gains, I'd argue that we, and by this I mean everyone who despises acts of terrorism whoever commits them, are so far losing hands down.
Why ?
America, Britain, and just about every other nation involved is fighting the wrong battle.
In the past we, and here I mean the Western powers such as Western Europe, the United Kingdom, America and the often forgotten Canada and Australia, had nice tangible enemies of various scales and power. Native Americans, Native Africans, Aborigines, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, Cuba, any nation which decided they really would like to try Socialism rather than Capitalism, and so on.
The common theme with all of them was that if you wanted to retaliate against them for anything, or even attack them pre-emptively, you had a nice clean target.
Native Americans ? Dispatch the Cav to kill afew campfulls.
Native Africans ? Send your troops off to take prisoners.
Socialist nation ? Point the task force in the right direction.
Now we face terrorism. Afghanistan, despite the civilian casualties, was certainly a campaign which had to happen when the Taliban refused to remove Al-Qaeda themselves. Iraq ? I don't think anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, whether their were terrorist links relted to Iraq is debateable, and not something I know enough about to comment on.
There are not any obvious targets anymore. Anyone who considers designating North Korea, Iran or Syria as one really needs to reconsider, and the very fact that some in the American and UK administration have done so shows just how the War on Terror is being wrongly fought.
You see, there is a big target. Terrorism as an idea, a way of thinking.
Want to stop terrorism ?
Then stop the factors which create terrorists. This can never be done 100%, there will always be someone who hates something, but the nations on this planet should address those things which let terrorist groups form in the first place.
Some would argue that addressing issues, like a Palestinian state, or Third World development and debt, or the demands of various groups for independent states, is a capitulation to the terrorists. But if there are people out there willing to die, to kill, for a cause then maybe we should at least recognise that somewhere in that hatred is an issue that needs to be looked at.
Bombs, bullets and armour will only take a War on Terror so far, and we've gone that far. They can destroy people, places, and weapons, but not ideas, and that is what we face, an idea.
If we look at just this country we can see how we're losing this war, our way of life is changing for the worse. I'm not just talking about concrete blocks around important government buildings, but the fact that we now accept as commonplace the sight of policemarksmen walking around with MP5 Submachine guns in our airports in greater numbers, and elsewhere, that our only reaction to the site of military vehicles at airports is one of cynicism and shock, that Chinook helicopters disgorging a stream of troops as it lands at an airport - in this country - get mere seconds of news, that the government has the power to seize any suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely and no one has challenged this noticeably..... If one speaks against bombing something to smithereens then they're obviously unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathiser, that never used to be the case did it ? What happened to freedom of speech ?
The list goes on and on, and that is just in the UK, a country which has so far suffered little damage in this war. And it's not just the big changes which are worrying, but small things also. In the US the country group Dixie Chicks criticised President Bush, and suddenly radio stations were pulling their songs from the air, and people were not buying their material. That's wrong. Since when did believing in your country mean being uncritical of everything it's leader does ?
Bit by bit, Freedom is dying.
Of course, we all know whose fault this is don't we ?
I'm not going to say who, but I'm sure some of you will come up with the answer.
To me, that answer does not matter. We, as a society, can scream blame for things all we like and nothing changes one bit.
Yet blame is all this is about for a fair few of our political pundits and talkshow hosts, amongst many. The terrorists are to blame because....America is to blame because..... etc.
Me ? Well I really don't know what I support in all this. I despise terrorism, but can see why some people feel it is their only option, and that there is good reason for certain military action, but balanced against what I cannot set aside as the horror that this means we are killing people, people whose only true crime was to be born outside of the West. Everyone who dies, on either side, is somebody's son or daughter. No one deserves to die.
Until more people in power address this war in a new light, looking at why it began rather than how we can kill everyone who decides to be a terrorist, then we can never win, and the endless cycle will continue for decades, if not centuries.
A totally fair world, with equality for all, is unrealistic, but a finer world than this is not, and it is the only real way we, and this time I mean everyone on this planet, will attain some kind of real true lasting peace.
If anyone has read this far then thanks, I think it got a little long winded at parts but this is my first proper post in this forum, so be gentle okay ?
Page:
Yeah, they've probably got a secret treaty with Lichtenstein to synthesise anthrax. Let's play safe and nuke them.
You're forgetting Luxembourg, they definitely have WMD, harbour terrorists and pose a great threat to our way of life.
Belldandy wrote:
> Good news is that we'll be able to use Iraq as a base against Syria
> and Iran as well, both of which have people in power who need a damn
> good kicking.
--
Maybe then we can invade Holland, because that'd be a good base to invade France. Chirac is against us, he must be wrong. And while we're there, we may as well invade Germany, they're probably planning World War 3, the dirty Huns. Best invade Russia as well to make sure no dirty Reds get up to any tricks. China's got a huge airforce, better take them out too.
I don't really trust Australia either...
> Good news is that we'll be able to use Iraq as a base against Syria
> and Iran as well, both of which have people in power who need a damn
> good kicking.
--
Maybe then we can invade Holland, because that'd be a good base to invade France. Chirac is against us, he must be wrong. And while we're there, we may as well invade Germany, they're probably planning World War 3, the dirty Huns. Best invade Russia as well to make sure no dirty Reds get up to any tricks. China's got a huge airforce, better take them out too.
I don't really trust Australia either...
I'm kind of at the "how many people still take me seriously enough to reply" stage now. I was going to just lurk around the forums for a few weeks but circumstances have changed that.
A damn good kicking, eh? I know you "Don't take things seriously" and all, but really, there is absolutely NO need to stir up stuff like that, is there? Rather pathetic, wouldn't you say?
Good news is that we'll be able to use Iraq as a base against Syria and Iran as well, both of which have people in power who need a damn good kicking.
Skarra wrote:
> But we didn't help Sadam get into power. Sure, they were the good guys
> in the Iran Iraq war, but a coup got the bloke in power.
> And your right, we did give his men training, some material towards
> WMD, but would you rather we don't bother correcting our past cockups,
> and just leave him to kill his own people?
I'll save Goatboy the trouble here and rain on your parade myself here Skarra.
The coup was aided, funded, and sanctioned, by American and British intelligence, who made sure the right people were disposed of prior to it, and that the right people would be in the right place at the right time. They also chose who would lead the coup, promising full backing for him as long as he did things our way.
We, the British, are the reason why no special forces units of any nation could get to Saddam. We sent the SAS over to train his bodyguard unit, and those men, who survived, trained successive generations of the bodyguard.
However, as I've said somewhere here earlier, we don't know if us acting differently then would change the events which came to past, and Skarra is quite right in saying that if anyone should have removed Saddam's regime and paid in blood for that, then it should be those who installed him.
> But we didn't help Sadam get into power. Sure, they were the good guys
> in the Iran Iraq war, but a coup got the bloke in power.
> And your right, we did give his men training, some material towards
> WMD, but would you rather we don't bother correcting our past cockups,
> and just leave him to kill his own people?
I'll save Goatboy the trouble here and rain on your parade myself here Skarra.
The coup was aided, funded, and sanctioned, by American and British intelligence, who made sure the right people were disposed of prior to it, and that the right people would be in the right place at the right time. They also chose who would lead the coup, promising full backing for him as long as he did things our way.
We, the British, are the reason why no special forces units of any nation could get to Saddam. We sent the SAS over to train his bodyguard unit, and those men, who survived, trained successive generations of the bodyguard.
However, as I've said somewhere here earlier, we don't know if us acting differently then would change the events which came to past, and Skarra is quite right in saying that if anyone should have removed Saddam's regime and paid in blood for that, then it should be those who installed him.
Goatboy wrote:
> If they had said that Hussein was an unwanted presence and was causing
> harm by his existence, however we are responsible for his existence
> and we are responsible for providing him with his WOMD and training,
> funding and intelligence background - however we now dont like
> him...
>
> Then yes, I would have been surprised by their honesty and possibly
> supported action.
> However, that does not automatically mean "Ah, but the end
> result's the same so what difference??"
>
> Because to remove a regime you no longer support, despite having
> helped to construct it, you do not go about this through lying,
> falsifying evidence and changing tack to "Oh but it's about the
> people now" half-way through an invasion.
But we didn't help Sadam get into power. Sure, they were the good guys in the Iran Iraq war, but a coup got the bloke in power.
And your right, we did give his men training, some material towards WMD, but would you rather we don't bother correcting our past cockups, and just leave him to kill his own people?
> If they had said that Hussein was an unwanted presence and was causing
> harm by his existence, however we are responsible for his existence
> and we are responsible for providing him with his WOMD and training,
> funding and intelligence background - however we now dont like
> him...
>
> Then yes, I would have been surprised by their honesty and possibly
> supported action.
> However, that does not automatically mean "Ah, but the end
> result's the same so what difference??"
>
> Because to remove a regime you no longer support, despite having
> helped to construct it, you do not go about this through lying,
> falsifying evidence and changing tack to "Oh but it's about the
> people now" half-way through an invasion.
But we didn't help Sadam get into power. Sure, they were the good guys in the Iran Iraq war, but a coup got the bloke in power.
And your right, we did give his men training, some material towards WMD, but would you rather we don't bother correcting our past cockups, and just leave him to kill his own people?
Light wrote:
> Nice post Belld...sorry, HALO fan. A good read.
>
> Only one point (aside from those made by others); you're saying the US
> deserve credit for not having a bunker mentality. Yet by being
> unilateral and refusing to listen to anyone else, and at the same time
> alienating their only ally (the uk) by starting a trade war with the
> EC, they're displaying exactly that.
Oh at last, so you do actually make points Light ? Maybe I was wrong to think that your alias "Light" referred to what went through one ear and out the other... nevertheless...
The EU trade war has plenty of it's own intricacies which I don't fully understand and only know snippets of information about, such as the previous Banana Trade War was the EU wanting to only deal with South American region nations that had, by sheer coincidence, been former European colonies, whilst not wanting to deal with those who had not.
Even then I think that there has to be a seperation between security policy and economic policy when nations deal with each other. At the end of the day, no matter what economic measures a nation takes or wants to take, it's all for the same end goal - prosperity at home.
What I am saying is that America, for all it's mishaps and Bush's desire to meet force with overwhelming force, could simply have pulled back into itself: secured the homeland, withdrawn from many countries, and sat back and watched the world go to hell.
America was the biggest terrorist target, but it's now a hardened target and we are already seeing that increased Western security is pushing terrorist attacks to regions where targets are easier and less secure. Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Kenya.... I would bet money these were hit because attacking targets in nations like the USA and UK is too hard for most cells - note the use of the word "most".
America didn't sit back, it got stuck in and at least sought help and alliances. On paper, theoretically, there was no need to do so, no need for a UN resolution to back attacking the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In the past, under Clinton, there was the barrage of cruise missiles accompanied by special forces "removing" targets, the resulting wreckage got a couple of days media, and that was that. This time America, and allies, went for the harder option - full scale removal of a regime. There was undeniable evidence of Taliban-Al Queda links for this to be justified, and I honestly do not see how else the objective could be achieved without force. The same could be said for Iraq, and Saddam.
12 Years of sanctions, various rumoured black ops, numerous attempts by opposers of the regime... all failed to remove a man we had put in power and who was at one time a friend of the West. This point, that the West, notably we and the Americans, put him in charge, seems to be oft used as some kind of bizarre counter to those who say an invasion was the only way to do this. We put him there, hindsights a wonderful thing 25 years after the event, we took him out again. The problem with this use of hindsight and related criticism is that we don't know the effect not putting Saddam in power would have on the region. What if Iran had invaded Iraq and won ? We just cannot say what could have happened had events played differently.
But, back to the point in hand. America seeking unity in defence yet having various trade wars with the EU. To my mind both parties are equally guilty of serious shortsightedness, the real trade links we should be looking at are those with the poorest nations on earth, and those which are exploited by both nations for cheap labour, materials e.t.c.
As I said in my original topic, if we, as in everyone who wants to see this "war on terror" simmer down, then the objective to attack is the underlying cause of terrorism - those conditions which create it. Our politicians can make as many points as they want trying to show how benevolent they are to the poor nations, and to trying to solve the Israel/Palestine situation, but what will bring real change is when those people who live in these places see it for real. For example, if ordinary Palestinians can see real change in how they can live, in their economy e.t.c. then this makes it harder to those who recruit terrorists in the first place.
> Nice post Belld...sorry, HALO fan. A good read.
>
> Only one point (aside from those made by others); you're saying the US
> deserve credit for not having a bunker mentality. Yet by being
> unilateral and refusing to listen to anyone else, and at the same time
> alienating their only ally (the uk) by starting a trade war with the
> EC, they're displaying exactly that.
Oh at last, so you do actually make points Light ? Maybe I was wrong to think that your alias "Light" referred to what went through one ear and out the other... nevertheless...
The EU trade war has plenty of it's own intricacies which I don't fully understand and only know snippets of information about, such as the previous Banana Trade War was the EU wanting to only deal with South American region nations that had, by sheer coincidence, been former European colonies, whilst not wanting to deal with those who had not.
Even then I think that there has to be a seperation between security policy and economic policy when nations deal with each other. At the end of the day, no matter what economic measures a nation takes or wants to take, it's all for the same end goal - prosperity at home.
What I am saying is that America, for all it's mishaps and Bush's desire to meet force with overwhelming force, could simply have pulled back into itself: secured the homeland, withdrawn from many countries, and sat back and watched the world go to hell.
America was the biggest terrorist target, but it's now a hardened target and we are already seeing that increased Western security is pushing terrorist attacks to regions where targets are easier and less secure. Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, Kenya.... I would bet money these were hit because attacking targets in nations like the USA and UK is too hard for most cells - note the use of the word "most".
America didn't sit back, it got stuck in and at least sought help and alliances. On paper, theoretically, there was no need to do so, no need for a UN resolution to back attacking the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In the past, under Clinton, there was the barrage of cruise missiles accompanied by special forces "removing" targets, the resulting wreckage got a couple of days media, and that was that. This time America, and allies, went for the harder option - full scale removal of a regime. There was undeniable evidence of Taliban-Al Queda links for this to be justified, and I honestly do not see how else the objective could be achieved without force. The same could be said for Iraq, and Saddam.
12 Years of sanctions, various rumoured black ops, numerous attempts by opposers of the regime... all failed to remove a man we had put in power and who was at one time a friend of the West. This point, that the West, notably we and the Americans, put him in charge, seems to be oft used as some kind of bizarre counter to those who say an invasion was the only way to do this. We put him there, hindsights a wonderful thing 25 years after the event, we took him out again. The problem with this use of hindsight and related criticism is that we don't know the effect not putting Saddam in power would have on the region. What if Iran had invaded Iraq and won ? We just cannot say what could have happened had events played differently.
But, back to the point in hand. America seeking unity in defence yet having various trade wars with the EU. To my mind both parties are equally guilty of serious shortsightedness, the real trade links we should be looking at are those with the poorest nations on earth, and those which are exploited by both nations for cheap labour, materials e.t.c.
As I said in my original topic, if we, as in everyone who wants to see this "war on terror" simmer down, then the objective to attack is the underlying cause of terrorism - those conditions which create it. Our politicians can make as many points as they want trying to show how benevolent they are to the poor nations, and to trying to solve the Israel/Palestine situation, but what will bring real change is when those people who live in these places see it for real. For example, if ordinary Palestinians can see real change in how they can live, in their economy e.t.c. then this makes it harder to those who recruit terrorists in the first place.
If they had said that Hussein was an unwanted presence and was causing harm by his existence, however we are responsible for his existence and we are responsible for providing him with his WOMD and training, funding and intelligence background - however we now dont like him...
Then yes, I would have been surprised by their honesty and possibly supported action.
However, that does not automatically mean "Ah, but the end result's the same so what difference??"
Because to remove a regime you no longer support, despite having helped to construct it, you do not go about this through lying, falsifying evidence and changing tack to "Oh but it's about the people now" half-way through an invasion.
Then yes, I would have been surprised by their honesty and possibly supported action.
However, that does not automatically mean "Ah, but the end result's the same so what difference??"
Because to remove a regime you no longer support, despite having helped to construct it, you do not go about this through lying, falsifying evidence and changing tack to "Oh but it's about the people now" half-way through an invasion.
Page: