PDA

View Full Version : This War on Terror...


Draco
08-02-04, 17:44
I used to be against it, but lately I'm beginning to wonder why anyone is against it...

I figure not doing anything is worse than doing the wrong thing...

I think Syria is next... http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

julialee
08-02-04, 17:49
Umm...you may be right Draco :(

[ 08. February 2004, 17:50: Message edited by: jules ]

Draco
08-02-04, 17:54
Pakistan could turn into an interesting developement soon...

India might invade when they go all Yugoslavia on us...

Celli
08-02-04, 18:11
India has been threatening to invade for the past 10 years at least.....

John Falstaff
09-02-04, 00:07
Some of the posts have been a bit terse and so why exactly people are saying what they are is not clear.

"This war on terror". Refers to what?

If it refers to the war against Iraq I've a number of points.

1) I think Draco's post actually points to one of the roots, and problem, with the war. One of the roots of the war was the political imperative for the US government to be seen as being proactive and 'doing something' about the violence on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon etc:.

2) The need not to be seen as complacent, and act soon, actually overrode any notion of acting in an informed manner. In effect we'll act now, and possibly wrongly, but the point was to be seen as acting.

3) I have not seen any evidence at all to link the regime of Saddam Hussien to Al Queida networks. Indeed they are such unlikely ideological bedfellows the claim is almost risable.

4) I would therefore suggest that the recent war against Iraq was, at best, an exercise in PR/Politics rather than a serious attempt at stopping future attacks. At worst it was an attempt to manipulate tragic events for political and economic gain. I note the presence of huge oil reserves!

5) Saddam, and his regime have long (over two decades) been known to be a bunch of genocidal sadists. I am amazed that people forget that for the first 10 years of his rule he was getting active support from western regimes and was seen as being the 'blue eyed boy' of the West. As a bulwark against the then perceived bugbear of Iran. Yet it was precisely in this period when Saddam and his regime had, and used, chemical weapons. For examples his use of mustard gas in the war against Iran and the gassing of over 5000 civilian Kurds, men women and children. Western governments not only ignored atrocities, but actively supported Saddam at his vile worst.

6) Since the war last year has the world become safer from terrorist attack? I don't see that as being the case. In Iraq itself the situation has got worse, and that seems to be the case in the wider world.

7) Have any of the root causes of terrorism been addressed? Have they even really been identified? If you want a world free of terrorism you have to deal with why it occurs. The surpression of violence by violence, which is the chicken and which the egg, will only lead to more pointless deaths, mutilation and hatred.

8) What's so wrong with peace love and understanding?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif

tazmine
09-02-04, 00:14
Peace , love and understanding...Utopia. Forty years ago tomorrow, John, the Beatles hit the US. Not much seems to have changed for the better. :( Peace, love & understanding would be wonderful, but I fear unattainable for now in this world.

John Falstaff
09-02-04, 00:18
Well there is always the cycle of violence, but what do the lovable moptops have to with it?

tazmine
09-02-04, 00:24
The lovable moptops were the antithesis of violence, & everything that mid 60's (Vietnam) stood for.

John Falstaff
09-02-04, 00:39
I associate the Beatles anti-war/violence phase as being post Sgt.Pepper. Before that, (shrugs) just a pop group.

The 'Peace Love and Understanding' thing is from the later Elvis Costello!

Isabella
09-02-04, 00:42
Originally posted by John Falstaff:
Some of the posts have been a bit terse and so why exactly people are saying what they are is not clear.

"This war on terror". Refers to what?

If it refers to the war against Iraq I've a number of points.

1) I think Draco's post actually points to one of the roots, and problem, with the war. One of the roots of the war was the political imperative for the US government to be seen as being proactive and 'doing something' about the violence on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon etc:.

2) The need not to be seen as complacent, and act soon, actually overrode any notion of acting in an informed manner. In effect we'll act now, and possibly wrongly, but the point was to be seen as acting.

3) I have not seen any evidence at all to link the regime of Saddam Hussien to Al Queida networks. Indeed they are such unlikely ideological bedfellows the claim is almost risable.

4) I would therefore suggest that the recent war against Iraq was, at best, an exercise in PR/Politics rather than a serious attempt at stopping future attacks. At worst it was an attempt to manipulate tragic events for political and economic gain. I note the presence of huge oil reserves!

5) Saddam, and his regime have long (over two decades) been known to be a bunch of genocidal sadists. I am amazed that people forget that for the first 10 years of his rule he was getting active support from western regimes and was seen as being the 'blue eyed boy' of the West. As a bulwark against the then perceived bugbear of Iran. Yet it was precisely in this period when Saddam and his regime had, and used, chemical weapons. For examples his use of mustard gas in the war against Iran and the gassing of over 5000 civilian Kurds, men women and children. Western governments not only ignored atrocities, but actively supported Saddam at his vile worst.

6) Since the war last year has the world become safer from terrorist attack? I don't see that as being the case. In Iraq itself the situation has got worse, and that seems to be the case in the wider world.

7) Have any of the root causes of terrorism been addressed? Have they even really been identified? If you want a world free of terrorism you have to deal with why it occurs. The surpression of violence by violence, which is the chicken and which the egg, will only lead to more pointless deaths, mutilation and hatred.

8) What's so wrong with peace love and understanding?

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/privateeye.gif Very well stated Sir John. I admit that I've tried to avoid threads having anything to do with this topic because I find it hard to explain my views without upsetting people. The whole isssue has me a bit hot under the collar. You stated some fine points here and I give you credit for coming out and saying them.

I have a hard time maintaining my diplomacy when I talk about the Bush administration. I respect the fact that some peole fully support him, Personally I think it is frightening that he is on such a high posistion and what is worse it that it looks as though he will be there for another four years. Especially with online voting. I am sure there is some logic behind trusting computers to tally votes ( since they are so perfect ) , but I can't find any. There seems to be a smugness to the current administration, a look that suggests that they know the next election is a shoe-in.

As for the 'War on Terror', Where is Osama bin Laden? As John has pointed out, there is no proof that he and Sadam where in cahoots. Yet people act as though this victory was a huge milestone in the terrorism war. True, Sadam is a monster and what he did to his people is unforgivable. But the premise behind the whole war was the belief that he had 'weapons of mass destruction' and that he and bin Laden were affiliated. There is still no evidence to support any of this. Maybe if there had been more honesty as to why we were going to war ie the oil and for PR...but almost everyone believed that Sadam was an iminant threat to us, ergo many supported the war. Now no one seems to be that upset that all this may have been greatly exaturated. Yet everyone came down on Clinton for having relations outside his marriage. Mind you I am a member of the Green Party and this is in no way defending what Clinton did. But is seems like a maritial issue is a drop in the bucket compared to an all out war (un-nessary) that cost so many innocent lives.

I hope I have not offened anyone here with this. It's how I feel and I respect the fact that not everyone see 's things the same way.

Sorry this is so long.

John Falstaff
09-02-04, 01:39
Isabella refers to 'new' voting technology. I can't post the link as it's part of the Independent's Portfolio, ie: you need to pay for access to the piece. But it was by Andrew Gumbel and published on 14 October 2003.

Basically, it details problems, biases and (frankly) shenanigans associated with the new voting technologies (specifically in the State of Georgia, but also refers to Texas and Alabama). Other US states, such as Oregon, Wisconsin and New York are dubious about these new voting technologies.

"Does your vote go where you want?"

Draco
09-02-04, 03:36
Originally posted by Celli:
India has been threatening to invade for the past 10 years at least.....When the Pakistani leader...moves on...

Pakistan will be in turmoil...

India would most certainly...render aid... :rolleyes:

zebigbos
09-02-04, 04:07
Originally posted by Draco:
Pakistan could turn into an interesting developement soon...

India might invade when they go all Yugoslavia on us...Actually, there is no more Yugoslavia, but everyone (almost) living there says Yugoslavia at place of Serbia and Montenegro. But I might be wrong, 'cause I haven't been there for more than 3 years. (when it still was Yugoslavia) :D

Draco
09-02-04, 04:16
Originally posted by Obelix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Pakistan could turn into an interesting developement soon...

India might invade when they go all Yugoslavia on us...Actually, there is no more Yugoslavia, but everyone (almost) living there says Yugoslavia at place of Serbia and Montenegro. But I might be wrong, 'cause I haven't been there for more than 3 years. (when it still was Yugoslavia) :D </font>[/QUOTE]Uh I know that, hehe...

I was referring to Pakistan having a civil war/splitting like Yugoslavia... ;)

zebigbos
09-02-04, 04:41
Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Obelix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Pakistan could turn into an interesting developement soon...

India might invade when they go all Yugoslavia on us...Actually, there is no more Yugoslavia, but everyone (almost) living there says Yugoslavia at place of Serbia and Montenegro. But I might be wrong, 'cause I haven't been there for more than 3 years. (when it still was Yugoslavia) :D </font>[/QUOTE]Uh I know that, hehe...

I was referring to Pakistan having a civil war/splitting like Yugoslavia... ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I understood wrong there than http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Draco
09-02-04, 04:44
Originally posted by Obelix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Obelix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Draco:
Pakistan could turn into an interesting developement soon...

India might invade when they go all Yugoslavia on us...Actually, there is no more Yugoslavia, but everyone (almost) living there says Yugoslavia at place of Serbia and Montenegro. But I might be wrong, 'cause I haven't been there for more than 3 years. (when it still was Yugoslavia) :D </font>[/QUOTE]Uh I know that, hehe...

I was referring to Pakistan having a civil war/splitting like Yugoslavia... ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I understood wrong there than http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif </font>[/QUOTE]It happens... http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

zebigbos
09-02-04, 04:55
hehe :D