Poll of the week - Safer World? Do you think, after the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of the "war against terror", the world is now safer than before?Show results
no way...for the time being terrorists'll always try and cause havoc in the world
but hopefully, someday in the future, these networks of terrorists will be wiped out
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
Definately not. Both conflicts have just pissed the fundamentalists off even more making the world more dangerous .
Mind you, I had a chat with a mate before 9/11 based on who would be first against the wall after my rise to power (should it ever occur ) and the Taliban were top. Now that they've gone, it's the Christian right wing in the USA closely followed by Craig David. I'm keeping my fingers crossed .
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
definately not...but as the saying goes..."it'll get worse before it'll get better" ive no doubt there will be numerous tragedies to come...but im sure we'll sort it in the end (im extremly optimistic tonight )
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
Definately not. A huge can of worms has been opened and simply bombing the shite out of a few third world countries is not going to get the lid back on anytime soon.
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
Nope there's probably more terrorist activity occuring now than before. It's just done by a different organisation (DUBYA).
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
It is difficult to know whether it is safer. Those who are opposed to the war on terror will say that it has angered the terrorists, those who support it will say that it is making it more difficult for the terrorists to operate.
It is my belief that the former argument is deeply flawed. In failing to respond forcefully, we give strength to the Al' Qaeda perception that we are weak and that their aims can be achieved by racking up the body count. In the 1930's many honourable people believed that if we avoided angering Hitler he would stop when his reasonable demands had been met. He didn't, and it became a whole lot more difficult to bring his reign to an end. Even the most rabid anti war/anti Bush/anti american couldn't realistically claim that it has made it easier for terrorists to operate, and their was no absence of will before.
9/11 didn't happen because of Bush. The planning required for an operation of that scale would have had to start before Bush took office. Al' Qaeda did it, and Bin Laden said as much himself, because the Americans had responded so meekly to previous attacks.
Those who argue that Bush is in any way morally equivalent to Bin Laden are at best deluding themselves. While it is undeniable and undenied that innocent people have died because of American / British action (although not on the scale claimed by many critics), they are unintentional casualties. The target of the action is the terrorists be they governments or individuals. The terrorists deliberately try to kill as many civilians as possible. The two are in no way comparable, and to suggest that they are is both shallow and insulting.
The socialists in Spain played on public fears that they had been attacked for supporting the USA and UK in Iraq, and Al' Qaeda have played up to this skillfully, but it is a falsehood. Bin Laden wants to see all of the lands he sees as rightfully belonging to Islam back in Muslim hands, and this includes Spain. He has made frequent references to 'the tragedy of Andalucia' or put another way he wants to reverse the Reconquista. The only way Spain could avoid being a target for Al' Qaeda would be to become a state along the lines of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The result of the Spanish election has made the world a more dangerous place. The terrorists can point to Zapareto's victory and say that they brought down the government of a liberal democracy. If/when there's an attack in the UK, I just hope that the Tories don't sink so low as to use it for political gain, or that if they did the public punished them for it.
I know that many here will disagree with me, but if anyone is interested in the alternative view, argued far better than by me, there were some good pieces in the Telegraph.
Quote: In the 1930's many honourable people believed that if we avoided angering Hitler he would stop when his reasonable demands had been met. He didn't, and it became a whole lot more difficult to bring his reign to an end.
ooh good point
i never saw it that way before
I guess it's true that we DO need to take some actions because terrorists arent going away just like that with us doing nothing...
but Bush isnt all that 'genuine' in his intentions though
in an attempt to control Iraq's oil, he rampaged the country, calling it a "liberation operation", causing lots of civillian casualties...
what im saying is that, if we want to REALLY combat terrorism, then we need someone without any underlying motives.. but such person is rare to encounter these days
Quote:Those who are opposed to the war on terror will say that it has angered the terrorists, those who support it will say that it is making it more difficult for the terrorists to operate. It is my belief that the former argument is deeply flawed.
I am not against the 'war on terror' per se, although I think the name is anachronistic given that those held in Guantanamo have not had the word of the Geneva Convention applied to them.
What I am against is the fact that we went to war against Iraq without a specific mandate from the UN (forget the previous resolutions, I mean a specific mandate to military action if conditions or parameters within a set time frame were not met by Saddam). It is worse that we have now found no WMDs of any note.
I was pro the war, although would have liked the specific mandate I mentioned. I argued vociferously for war with my family and friends (most of whom were anti), and now feel duped beyond all belief. My pro status was based entirely on the assumption that we weren't being sold a pack of lies about the existence of WMDs (naive, I know).
We invade a country on a complete pretence, no matter how bad a dictator Saddam was, and then expect all of the rest of the Arab world (who don't like the USA or the UK that much at the best of times) not to see it as an openly hostile act against their culture???? Forget their governments/monarchies, most of whom I'm sure are putting a brave face on it, it's the ordinary guy in the street that's going to be most pissed off - the Sun readers of Saudi if you like.
I'm convinced that this lie of a war will have lead some of these folk, who may not have had too extreme views about the west previously, to get involved in more radical movements. And I think that makes the world a less safe place, because there are more bodies for planning and implementing terrorist acts of the future.
Quote:but Bush isnt all that 'genuine' in his intentions though
in an attempt to control Iraq's oil, he rampaged the country, calling it a "liberation operation", causing lots of civillian casualties...
at the end of the day, we can only guess at Bush's motives. Those who support him will say they are honourable, those who oppose him will say they aren't. none of us actually know. In terms of the oil, Iraq will almost certainly join OPEC, so the benefits to Bush in terms of oil are actually limited. He could actually have been better off getting Russia to increase it's production.
The civilian casualties of the liberation were actually fairly low, although you would never know that from the BBC / Guardian, and they pale into insignificance compared with the numbers killed by Hussein before or the terrorists since it happened In a poll conducted by various broadcasting organisations (including the BBC, although they haven't covered it much),
57% Think that life is better now Saddam is gone
49% Think the invasion was right (as opposed to 39% who thought it was wrong)
17% Think that attacks on coalition forces were acceptable (fairly low given that the beeb and Guardian would have us believe that the Iraqis are all screaming for our blood.
Quote:What I am against is the fact that we went to war against Iraq without a specific mandate from the UN (forget the previous resolutions, I mean a specific mandate to military action if conditions or parameters within a set time frame were not met by Saddam).
He was in multiple breaches of the ceasefire from last time.
In terms of the opinions of ordinary people over there, the poll above shows that there are slightly more in favour than against. Part of the problem is that western media have painted a picture which is not supported by the polling data.
Re: Poll of the week - Safer World?
Have to agree with Sanity above. Perhaps if the people of irag or Afgahnistan were asked if the world was a safer place they might answer differently to us. When it was just another headline on the news it never affected us so our world was a safe and happy place. Sept 11th changed all that. We were right to go to war and I think the UN's credibility went down when they failed to give a mandate for military action even though it would appear Iraq was in breach of her agreements after the first Gulf war.
Quote:I think the UN's credibility went down when they failed to give a mandate for military action
The UN would have probably given the UK the US a mandate if Bush had waited for the inspectors to finish their job. But I do agree the UN has lost its credibility and will probably end up like its predecessor the league of nations. The funny thing is both organization faced the same problem they had no power to implement its rules, it does mater how many mandates it hands out the country in question can just ignore them for example Israel and Iraq.
If the UN wants to restore its credibility and change things for the good then it has to sort out its priorities it claims to promote freedom of speech yet countries like the USSR and China were on the permanent members of the security council. Countries with bad human rights abuses or dictatorships should not be admitted into the UN.
But then the question is what do you do with these rouge countries sanctions only cause pain for the citizens the only other option is to overthrow the regime but then you could be left in the situation in which Iraq is in just know making a bad situation worse.
Quote:He was in multiple breaches of the ceasefire from last time.
I don't disagree, but he didn't have WMDs which was the reason cited for war now, did he, as far as we can establish after a year of occupying the country?
Quote:In terms of the opinions of ordinary people over there, the poll above shows that there are slightly more in favour than against.
So only just under 50% of Iraqis, who were terrorised and brutalised by Saddam, think that the invasion and overthrow was good? I'm guessing that way more than 50% of non-Saddam-brutalised Arabs, who are spun anti-west stories in their press, think our invasion and occupation is terrible then.
We don't just have to worry about those in Iraq particularly in my opinion. They are always going to be the ones most appreciative of any action we took, 'cos Saddam was a bastard. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's gone. But I think we will just have justified a lot of anti-western hatred, for the wrong or right reasons, and that will provide all the more people as terrorists of the future .
It looks as though he might not have had any at the end of his time in power. It is indisputeable fact that he had them earlier on. The question then becomes at what point he got rid of them, where, and why he persisted in the pretence that he did when it was obvious that he faced invasion.
pitching the invasion on the grounds of WMD was always a mistake, and it was one which was made necessary by the prejudices of the Labour party. John Howard didn't need to make that claim, so he just said we're going in to get rid of an evil dictator who is a threat to all civilised nations. Of all the leaders in the coalition, he is the one who suffered least. Blair would have been better advised to use the Ann Clwyd line which was to support the war on the grounds that Saddam was an evil murderiing bastard.
Quote:pitching the invasion on the grounds of WMD was always a mistake, and it was one which was made necessary by the prejudices of the Labour party. John Howard didn't need to make that claim, so he just said we're going in to get rid of an evil dictator who is a threat to all civilised nations. Of all the leaders in the coalition, he is the one who suffered least.
John Howard, Australian PM, used WMD as rationale just as much as Blair and Bush. His leadership is getting more tenuous now. He has never been considered particularly truthful. We call him "Honest John." (We call redheads "Bluey")
Quote:Blair would have been better advised to use the Ann Clwyd line which was to support the war on the grounds that Saddam was an evil murderiing bastard.
I don't disagree about Saddam, but if Blair had done that it wouldn't have been under the auspices of existing Security Council resolutions. Wouldn't he, Bush et al have had to acquired a resolution along the lines that Saddam had committed crimes against humanity (not sure of the UN term for it, but I'm fairly sure it's not evil murdering bastard )? Then they could have legitimately kicked him out for that very reason under international law.
My problem is that they told the world they were going to war for one reason - WMDs. They wouldn't wait for the UN Inspectors to finish their job, didn't find the WMDs and now look like powers in occupation of an Arab state. This is not a good way to make your average Joe Arab think 'Ah, the west is lovely, let's not sign up to become a nuts bomber' . Why should we get away with wars that are dubious in terms of international law, and expect the rest of the world to roll over and say "Fair enough"?
Quote:Probably because all america and britain had to do was produce the receits.
I think it was when he used them we sort of had an idea.
Quote:if Blair had done that it wouldn't have been under the auspices of existing Security Council resolutions.
Wouldn't have bothered me. The UN is a shabb dishonourable talking shop. The sooner it collapses the better. Getting a UN resolution doesn't mean something is right, it means it doesn't costthe French any trade.
.
) and the Taliban were top. Now that they've gone, it's the Christian right wing in the USA closely followed by Craig David. I'm keeping my fingers crossed 
.
)
I've never heard that before - superb 
.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies