The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
My last one is to Goatboy.
So tell me. If Tony Blair and George Buse Jr. had stood up and said, Hussein is a bad man and i'd feel a lot better and safer if he were gone, if this had been said, would you have been happy, and in support of an operation to free the Iraqi people?
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.
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.
Twiddly wrote:
> Well, the objections to the "methods", while showing an
> admirable degree of humanitarian sympathy, were essentially foolish.
--
By methods I meant fictitious WOMD scare stories, Downing Street ordering the report to be "sexed up" (BBC news website), cribbing from an 11yr old thesis paper written by a university student and presented, spelling mistakes and all, as "intelligence".
I mean tabloid hysteria trying to whip up anti-Iraq fear and hatred through constant stories about Ricin, bombs at Heathrow, possible impending terrorist attacks (from a country that has never committed a single act of terrorism against this country or any other country outside of it's immediate borders)
I objected, and still do, to scaremongering, erroneous lies and false propaganda produced before the invasion.
All for one specific purpose:
To encourage public support for an invasion that is being investigated as possibly illegal in international law.
> Well, the objections to the "methods", while showing an
> admirable degree of humanitarian sympathy, were essentially foolish.
--
By methods I meant fictitious WOMD scare stories, Downing Street ordering the report to be "sexed up" (BBC news website), cribbing from an 11yr old thesis paper written by a university student and presented, spelling mistakes and all, as "intelligence".
I mean tabloid hysteria trying to whip up anti-Iraq fear and hatred through constant stories about Ricin, bombs at Heathrow, possible impending terrorist attacks (from a country that has never committed a single act of terrorism against this country or any other country outside of it's immediate borders)
I objected, and still do, to scaremongering, erroneous lies and false propaganda produced before the invasion.
All for one specific purpose:
To encourage public support for an invasion that is being investigated as possibly illegal in international law.
Here here!
Well, the objections to the "methods", while showing an admirable degree of humanitarian sympathy, were essentially foolish.
Saddam was never going to be removed by harsh language or continuing to scowl at him from a distance. War was the only way to remove him from power. Unless you had a better idea of course...
Saddam was never going to be removed by harsh language or continuing to scowl at him from a distance. War was the only way to remove him from power. Unless you had a better idea of course...
HALO Fan wrote:
> Whatever anyones opinion on Iraq now, I'd be surprised if anyone can
> argue that the removal of Saddam - not the method used to achieve it -
> is anything but a good change for the world as a whole.
--
Odd comment, as all during the lead-up and during the invasion, I did not at any point hear anybody suggesting that leaving him in power was a good idea.
The objections were to the methods and reasons given. Ie, lies.
> Whatever anyones opinion on Iraq now, I'd be surprised if anyone can
> argue that the removal of Saddam - not the method used to achieve it -
> is anything but a good change for the world as a whole.
--
Odd comment, as all during the lead-up and during the invasion, I did not at any point hear anybody suggesting that leaving him in power was a good idea.
The objections were to the methods and reasons given. Ie, lies.
Cheers for those points. I can't understand why people say no WMD have been found, after all, the biggest WMD had been removed, Saddam!
Skarra wrote:
> Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed
> people, but ended a war that killed million's!
Kind of right, the Japanese government were forewarned of what to expect if they did not surrender - total devestation of a major city. Even after the first atom bomb hit they still did not surrender, it took a second one to do that. Less talked about is that Hitler was similarly obsessed with creating the atom bomb first.
Had it not been for resistance forces, and RAF Bomber Aircrews, then the Nazi's would have had the requisite material to begin making one in 1942, admittedly they still had to figure out the hows and therefores, but they'd have had the material to do it. Luckily the facilities were smashed by successive raids, and resistance fighters rigged a civilian ferry, transporting the last material to Germany, with explosives and sent it to the bottom of a lake, along with all onboard.
The allies use of the atom bomb was a regrettable, but necessary action, and I guess that seeing as none of us were personally alive in those days, then all we have to go on is what our grandparents tell us if they were alive then. Even from mine I gather that it would be hard to understand just how terrible that time really was.
> But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians.
> They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do,
> ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference
> in the people you say? I beg to differ.
I'd agree with you here. The continual insistence of many anti-war campaigners to class both these as the same wins them little support. The bomber pilot is sent by politicians whom are voted into power and are taking legal actions without specifically targeting civilians. A suicide bomber takes actions from a non-legal or recognised authority and targets civilians in most cases. Anyone who has actually ever met a real fighter or bomber crewperson, be they British, American, Israeli or whoever, will know that they just would not follow an order to target civilians specifically.
> Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted
> aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of
> Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the
> people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Too true, I disliked how, during this second war, the news media generally made out Iraq as the victim in this whole thing, referring to the now 3 wars Iraqi's had endured. Let me see...war #1 Attack Iran with western support...war #2 Invade Luwait ...war #3 Saddam's sheer arrogance and belief that no one would remove him. In a sense ordinary Iraqi's were the victims, but not Iraq's government.
Whatever anyones opinion on Iraq now, I'd be surprised if anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam - not the method used to achieve it - is anything but a good change for the world as a whole.
> Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed
> people, but ended a war that killed million's!
Kind of right, the Japanese government were forewarned of what to expect if they did not surrender - total devestation of a major city. Even after the first atom bomb hit they still did not surrender, it took a second one to do that. Less talked about is that Hitler was similarly obsessed with creating the atom bomb first.
Had it not been for resistance forces, and RAF Bomber Aircrews, then the Nazi's would have had the requisite material to begin making one in 1942, admittedly they still had to figure out the hows and therefores, but they'd have had the material to do it. Luckily the facilities were smashed by successive raids, and resistance fighters rigged a civilian ferry, transporting the last material to Germany, with explosives and sent it to the bottom of a lake, along with all onboard.
The allies use of the atom bomb was a regrettable, but necessary action, and I guess that seeing as none of us were personally alive in those days, then all we have to go on is what our grandparents tell us if they were alive then. Even from mine I gather that it would be hard to understand just how terrible that time really was.
> But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians.
> They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do,
> ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference
> in the people you say? I beg to differ.
I'd agree with you here. The continual insistence of many anti-war campaigners to class both these as the same wins them little support. The bomber pilot is sent by politicians whom are voted into power and are taking legal actions without specifically targeting civilians. A suicide bomber takes actions from a non-legal or recognised authority and targets civilians in most cases. Anyone who has actually ever met a real fighter or bomber crewperson, be they British, American, Israeli or whoever, will know that they just would not follow an order to target civilians specifically.
> Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted
> aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of
> Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the
> people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Too true, I disliked how, during this second war, the news media generally made out Iraq as the victim in this whole thing, referring to the now 3 wars Iraqi's had endured. Let me see...war #1 Attack Iran with western support...war #2 Invade Luwait ...war #3 Saddam's sheer arrogance and belief that no one would remove him. In a sense ordinary Iraqi's were the victims, but not Iraq's government.
Whatever anyones opinion on Iraq now, I'd be surprised if anyone can argue that the removal of Saddam - not the method used to achieve it - is anything but a good change for the world as a whole.
A couple of things to say on this one:-
Black Glove wrote:
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed people, but ended a war that killed million's!
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians. They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do, ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference in the people you say? I beg to differ.
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Black Glove wrote:
> When are people going to realize that you don't create peace by
> killing people - it just fans the flames.
Tell me again, how was WW2 ended, oh, thats right, NUKE'S. That killed people, but ended a war that killed million's!
> I see no difference between anyone who commits an act of aggressive
> violence: the suicide bomber and the coalition bombers of mass
> destruction are one and the same, they both use violence to get what
> they want.
But there's a difference, the bomber pilot isn't targeting civilians. They do their damdest to avoid them. What is it suicide bombers do, ah, i know, detonate explosives next to a babies face. No difference in the people you say? I beg to differ.
> Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but those who command and
> perpetrate acts of 'aggressive' violence should all be rounded and
> charged with crimes against humanity.
Remember 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and Allied forces acted aggressively(going into Southern Iraq). Tell me, the liberators of Kuwait, are they guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm sure the people of Kuwait wouldn't think so.
Page: