View Full Version : do you think the war on terror has made the world...
do you think the war on terror has made the world a safer or more dangerous place?
and I know a stupid question on this site but I'm hoping I might get a few responses from people out of school.
Herrmannek
09-11-2003, 01:09 PM
I voted yes, world is safer, but question is for who is safer? Coalition soldiers in iraq cant say that :)
for people living in bagdhad it's a lot more dangerous too. murders everyday
ibstolidude
09-11-2003, 01:37 PM
I'm hoping I might get a few responses from people out of school.
for people living in bagdhad it's a lot more dangerous too. murders everyday
-hmmmm interesting you posted both of these in the same thread...
Have you been to Baghdad either before or after the Coalition involvement? -
or do you simply base this on hearsay...
or do you have their national figures on criminal activities before and after the coalition involvment? - (kinda hard since they only are just now creating a police force..) - or perhaps it just suited your needs to answer with such drivel.
Trigger
09-11-2003, 01:41 PM
Safer.
Tens of thousands of dead Taliban and Al Quaeda can't be wrong. woot
I'm hoping I might get a few responses from people out of school.
for people living in bagdhad it's a lot more dangerous too. murders everyday
-hmmmm interesting you posted both of these in the same thread...
.
I reserve the right to have finished school and still be a thick as two planks
Have you been to Baghdad either before or after the Coalition involvement? -
or do you simply base this on hearsay...
or do you have their national figures on criminal activities before and after the coalition involvment? - (kinda hard since they only are just now creating a police force..) - or perhaps it just suited your needs to answer with such drivel.
it's obvious when you live in a country that doesn't edit out that kind of news.
Trigger
09-11-2003, 02:14 PM
Translator Please!!
Translator Please!!
c'est evident quand t'habite dans un pays qui supprime pas ce genre d'info
ibstolidude
09-11-2003, 02:36 PM
really I get my Iraq news via Sat phone & emails from Iraq - thanks all the same
assumtpion makes an ASS out of you and well YOU.
really I get my Iraq news via Sat phone & emails from Iraq - thanks all the same
assumtpion makes an ASS out of you and well YOU.
an assumption? why would I make that kind of thing up to proove a point in front of a load of schoolboys?
All I'm saying is they make a big issue of it because of the current mixture of the questioning of this governments motives to join an attack on iraq and the 9/11 anniversary.. because that was the cause of all this.
really I get my Iraq news via Sat phone & emails from Iraq - thanks all the same
from whom?
Trigger
09-11-2003, 02:46 PM
cut wrote:
c'est evident quand t'habite dans un pays qui supprime pas ce genre d'info
Did you just call me an asshole?
California Joe
09-11-2003, 06:49 PM
Yeah, pretty sure. Either that or a pastry.
Bulkowski
09-11-2003, 06:56 PM
cut wrote:
c'est evident quand t'habite dans un pays qui supprime pas ce genre d'info
Did you just call me an asshole?
trou duc' is what you want
front
09-11-2003, 11:25 PM
The poll and question is about "the world". More dangerous to live in or to the USA?
The answer is the same...
This latest "war on terrorism" has made the whole world a far more dangerous place to live in. In any country.
It has meant that countries who are on the US "short-list" now understand that in order to prevent the US military from unilaterally invading and then kicking the crap out of them they had better invest in some nukes.
Non-proliferation, and the reduction, of nuclear weapons was the common goal of the international community, and the majority of citizens in all countries of the world during the Cold War. The reduction of nuclear arms arsenals was the aim of the US and Soviet governments during the 1980s (SALT and SALT II). These aims are now reversed by other countries who wish, as the state of Israel and France did, to achieve their own nuclear defense outside of multilateral organisations.
It has polarised world opinion... former allied nations of the USA are now vehemently anti-Bush US government.
The remnants of Al-Queda and the Taliban forces are more determined than ever to avenge the destruction of their bases. Other groups have gone to ground, more determined than ever that when they launch their own attacks they will be more damaging than ever to offset the un-equal response they are more likely to suffer.
States such as Israel, Russia, and Indonesia have used this latest "war on terror" to achieve by violent actions that which they could not achieve by diplomacy or compromise.
Countries which relied on aid from the US and other nations are now seeing that aid evaporate. People are still starving.
The ideal of the United Nations has finally been so wrecked in the open that no-one now believes in its aims ("to spare future generations from the horrors of war") as the main veto powers in it (the US, Britain, and France) are at loggerheads. The Bush government went to the UN for support, and when it was not given, took action on it's own. The UN Security Council has been made irrelevant and this "war on terrorism" will cast aspersions on the other UN humanitarian agencies which it maintains. UN resolutions, and sanctions, will be seen as empty threats if at the end the Bush government will ignore them and act with violence.
And in the USA the Bush government has begun to hammer at the walls of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights... and any voices of dissent, or warning, are marginalised, threatened, and badgered into silence with the complacency of the media. Children caught with cannabis are now in danger of being classified as "narco-terrorists".
Al-Queda handed the Bush government a blank cheque on September 11th... and it is being spent with gusto. The costs will be enormous, and the average US citizen will be left with the bill.
And it is not about to end anytime soon this latest "war on terrorism".
The world is most certainly not a safer place. The poll above [17 votes to 10 on 09.11.2003] was voted on, I believe, by people who consider the world to be America and its borders. They might "feel" safer surrounded by the biggest military machine the world has ever known, but the world does not.
cheers
front
I think you covered everythink there..
Seiyuuki
09-12-2003, 07:36 AM
This latest "war on terrorism" has made the whole world a far more dangerous place to live in. In any country.
Vietnam ain't so frightful. So can't use "any," "most" or "a lot" would be a more acceptable term. That country is on nobody list and frankly, the world hardly give them any attention...I WANT ATTENTION...I THINK I NEED A HUG.
It has meant that countries who are on the US "short-list" now understand that in order to prevent the US military from unilaterally invading and then kicking the crap out of them they had better invest in some nukes.
Or bow down and accept their new ruler...HAVEN'T YOU PEOPLE LEARN ANYTHING...DAMN YANKS ARE HELL BENT ON WORLD DOMINATION...MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Australia is next I heard.
Non-proliferation, and the reduction, of nuclear weapons was the common goal of the international community, and the majority of citizens in all countries of the world during the Cold War. The reduction of nuclear arms arsenals was the aim of the US and Soviet governments during the 1980s (SALT and SALT II). These aims are now reversed by other countries who wish, as the state of Israel and France did, to achieve their own nuclear defense outside of multilateral organisations.
This, on a serious note, the knowledge of turning nuclear power into weapon is not exactly as secretive as its once was and not as hard to obtain as much as the Holy Grail as its once was. If everything in the past three years didn't happen, Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. would still aspire and probably manage to obtain their own nukes.
It has polarised world opinion... former allied nations of the USA are now vehemently anti-Bush US government.
Didn't the French wanted to lead the other pole? The US can give them the South Pole and we'll keep the North Pole since we're closer to it, plus Santa is there.
The remnants of Al-Queda and the Taliban forces are more determined than ever to avenge the destruction of their bases. Other groups have gone to ground, more determined than ever that when they launch their own attacks they will be more damaging than ever to offset the un-equal response they are more likely to suffer.
Bah...you people need to lighten up. These guys and maybe gals are just horny Arabs who want to spend some quality time with 72 virgins as soon as possible...Wouldn't you want to spend some quality time with 72 virgins?
Countries which relied on aid from the US and other nations are now seeing that aid evaporate. People are still starving.
Stupid Yanks, they think they can solve hunger problem through proliferating genetic engineer food. I can testify for its harmful effect, I posted this post right after eating some genetically engineer food. See how hard I'm trying to be serious...Damn voices in my head keep yelling!!!!!!!!!!!!! Make it stop mommy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The ideal of the United Nations has finally been so wrecked in the open that no-one now believes in its aims ("to spare future generations from the horrors of war") as the main veto powers in it (the US, Britain, and France) are at loggerheads. The Bush government went to the UN for support, and when it was not given, took action on it's own. The UN Security Council has been made irrelevant and this "war on terrorism" will cast aspersions on the other UN humanitarian agencies which it maintains. UN resolutions, and sanctions, will be seen as empty threats if at the end the Bush government will ignore them and act with violence.
The Clinton government went to the UN for support, and when it was not given, took action on it's own. If you use "US" government instead of "Bush" government, it help you a lot in sounding objective p-).
And in the USA the Bush government has begun to hammer at the walls of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights... and any voices of dissent, or warning, are marginalised, threatened, and badgered into silence with the complacency of the media. Children caught with cannabis are now in danger of being classified as "narco-terrorists".
Crap!!! I lost my train of thoughts. DAMN POKEMON!!! And their strange hypnotic speech. :(
And it is not about to end anytime soon this latest "war on terrorism".
I KNOW!!! Damn Yankees are such party poopers...It's such some horny Arabs wanting to see 72 virgins quicker than usual.
The world is most certainly not a safer place. The poll above [17 votes to 10 on 09.11.2003] was voted on, I believe, by people who consider the world to be America and its borders. They might "feel" safer surrounded by the biggest military machine the world has ever known, but the world does not.
That's exactly what I been trying to say, the US ain't the only one with nukes. What are you foreigners doing on your lazy butt??? DAMN IT, NUKE THE US, NUKE THEIR ASS!!! Then you can have the world all to yourself and it will be a much safer place, a more radioactive place too, but much safer place.
I think the pills are wearing off now...Wow!!! 4 o'clock in the morning and 48 hours without sleep. Damn...9 different type of pills can have one strange effect on the human body, go figure!
Herrmannek
09-12-2003, 07:43 AM
Wouldn't you want to spend some quality time with 72 virgins?
Yes, but you wouldn't call them virgins after that.
budanski
09-12-2003, 09:31 AM
Whats the big deal with virgins? BORING.
The question should be, did the world become safer or more dangerous since Bush got elected :P
budanski
09-12-2003, 11:41 AM
Paralyzing terrorists organization by freezing their assets, toppling the Taliban and capturing Islamofascist thugs around the world, removed one of the world’s most lethal threats to American security: Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime, and putting countries like Syria and Iran on notice... Yeah, I'd say that the world is lot more dangerous....
http://bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com/images/section-image-033837-7559.jpg
for the enemies of the U.S.
more interesting read: Middle East: The Realities
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43431-2003Jul24¬Found=true)
Trigger
09-12-2003, 12:19 PM
All of you Bush haters crack me up.
On the one hand you can't go 5 minutes without hearing what a half-witted sorry excuse for a human being he is, and on the other he's this evil genius who single handedly has plunged the world into war, pestilence, famine and a new nuclear arms race.
So, which is it?
I have no problem if people disagree with his religion or his policies. That's their right (or their wrong depending on where you stand). But at least he has taken some action, and as far as terrorists 'going to ground', many terrorists have gone to ground - permanently.
front
09-13-2003, 02:18 AM
Trigger wrote:
"But at least he has taken some action"
The "action" taken is not going to help the average person in America my friend because it is not right. Near on the whole world looked to the USA on September 12th, 2001 as a victim of a monstrous attrocity. The sympathy of the world was with the US. One year later that massive, and it was massive, sympathy had disappeared. All because of that action Bush took. Unilateral invasions of sovereign nations makes other countries fret.
"But at least he has taken some action"
The only action which would have impressed me after September 11th would have been the immediate resignation of the Secretary Of Defense of the USA. He failed.
Know too that I am not a "Bush-hater". I could not care less about him. He is simply a lip for the arrogancy of Cheney and Rumsfield. I hope, though, that they will be called to account one day.
cheers
front
front
09-13-2003, 02:24 AM
Trigger wrote:
"But at least he has taken some action"
The "action" taken is not going to help the average person in America my friend because it is not right. Near on the whole world looked to the USA on September 12th, 2001 as a victim of a monstrous attrocity. The sympathy of the world was with the US. One year later that massive, and it was massive, sympathy had disappeared. All because of that action Bush took. Unilateral invasions of sovereign nations makes other countries fret.
"But at least he has taken some action"
The only action which would have impressed me after September 11th would have been the immediate resignation of the Secretary Of Defense of the USA. He failed.
"But at least he has taken some action, and as far as terrorists 'going to ground', many terrorists have gone to ground - permanently."
As martyrs. To the next generation. :-(
Know too that I am not a "Bush-hater". I could not care less about him. He is simply a lip for the arrogancy of Cheney and Rumsfield. I hope, though, that they will be called to account one day.
cheers
front
StarvingStudent47
09-13-2003, 04:39 AM
Whats the big deal with virgins? BORING.
I think there's something to be said for a woman with experience.
Anyway, when I reach Paradise, I'd rather have one non-virgin Shakira than all the darned virgins they could throw at me. Is that too much to ask?
Well I think Bush should also be looking at what's causing terrorism, what is the cause of all this and try creating solutions for that. He shouldn't just topple over regimes like Taliban and Saddam because in the end you're only vreating new legions of terrorists with that.
Maciek
09-13-2003, 05:44 AM
Killing terrorist is not a solution as long they have a ulimited sourse of people ready to join them. You kill one and next time there will by ten of them. You have to drag people on your side.
Maciek
09-13-2003, 05:50 AM
I say yes, the terrorist are to busy fighting US to attack me. :D
ArmoredDov_D9
09-13-2003, 07:20 AM
War against Terror have serveral fronts:
* The military front - hunt down the terrorist.
* The logistic front - cut their funding (Europe beginning to comply only now).
* The diplomaatic front - form an allaince against terror-supporting states such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
* The domestic front - secure yourself against possible threats.
All of these fronts are neccessary in order the civilized world will win the war and not the terrorists. Unfortunaly, the US tend to neglect the logistic front and the diplomatic front. Europe neglets them all.
http://hydepark.co.il/hydepark/upload01/030913_141925-3217_terror02.jpg
All of these fronts are neccessary in order the civilized world will win the war and not the terrorists. Unfortunaly, the US tend to neglect the logistic front and the diplomatic front. Europe neglets them all.
http://hydepark.co.il/hydepark/upload01/030913_141925-3217_terror02.jpg
It's funny though that Europe hasn't seen many terror attacks recently though, when it's neglecting all those fronts. :roll:
ArmoredDov_D9
09-13-2003, 08:23 AM
It is not a coincidence. Europe is a great source of terror funds, especially France and Swistzerland (Swiss banks have always been the perfect place for the world's terrorist\dictator\war-criminals to hide there money in).
There is a silent understanding that as long Europe don't act against terror funders in its territory, the terrorist will not strike it. I don't say Europe have nagotiated with terrorists and reach that agreement. It is more the Europe affraid to fight and believe as long it will leave terror groups alone they will leave it alone and focus on USA and Israel. They try to stay neutral in the war against terror rather than taking the anti-terrorist side. They believe that the neutrality will keep their rich, peaceful and prosperous bubble intact.
Sabre
09-13-2003, 10:15 AM
"Bah...you people need to lighten up. These guys and maybe gals are just horny Arabs who want to spend some quality time with 72 virgins as soon as possible...Wouldn't you want to spend some quality time with 72 virgins?"
I don't believe in any afterlife. That's why I'm slightly concerned when these guys want to take me with them, or some luney christian wants to plunge the world into one big crusade.
"All of these fronts are neccessary in order the civilized world will win the war and not the terrorists. Unfortunaly, the US tend to neglect the logistic front and the diplomatic front. Europe neglets them all."
Sorry, we were too busy rebuilding our economy after the war with no US help (unlike Israel, and the former enemies, somehow the US claims this was the most important stabilising effort ever?!), dealing with jewish terrorists in Palistine (with no US help), some more terrorists in Greece (with promised, but not delivered, US help), then a few more terrorists in Turkey (pattern involving the US developing here?), then combining the two in Cyprus for decades (no US help there) and where else? Oh yes, good old NI. Funnily enough, the US decided to let it's companies help there for once...except they financed the IRA (so much for Switzerland). Cheers guys.
If I'm not mistaken, it was Germany closely followed by the UK that first addressed terrorist issues in the 70's after Munchen?
Saranof
09-13-2003, 11:16 AM
Safer.
Tens of thousands of dead Taliban and Al Quaeda can't be wrong. woot
For ever dead terrorist there are 10 more who will take his place.
You can't kill terrorism with guns, you can kill it with aid and food though.
Maciek
09-13-2003, 12:17 PM
It's better to fight terror on foreign ground then on your own.
Israelis what do you think of that?
ArmoredDov_D9
09-13-2003, 12:25 PM
True.
First Rule of any war, right a specialy at the war against terror: make the war in the enemy's territory, for your civilians will not be damaged from the war (this is the goal of war - to protect your civilians).
It is a lot easier to arrest a terrorist in Iraq than to stop terrorist with an explosive device on the subway of New York.
Ratamacue
09-13-2003, 01:40 PM
For ever dead terrorist there are 10 more who will take his place.
You can't kill terrorism with guns, you can kill it with aid and food though.
So you're an expert on this matter, huh? I guess we might as well just give food and aid to the same people that did an unprovoked attack on the US. That makes sense.
ArmoredDov_D9
09-13-2003, 02:53 PM
Contrary to popular belief, most terrorists, including suicide bombers, aren't poor and dumb. Their economic status is above the average of the local population and they are well educated (some of them are even students in universities).
Fargin
09-13-2003, 10:08 PM
For ever dead terrorist there are 10 more who will take his place.
You can't kill terrorism with guns, you can kill it with aid and food though.
So you're an expert on this matter, huh? I guess we might as well just give food and aid to the same people that did an unprovoked attack on the US. That makes sense.
To me it does.
James
09-13-2003, 10:25 PM
It makes sense for the future. People won't be so keen on conducting terror attacks if they are treated in a friendly and respectful way by those who would be their targets.
Please notice that I said FUTURE. I think it is helpful to look at the root of the problem.
It makes sense for the future. People won't be so keen on conducting terror attacks if they are treated in a friendly and respectful way by those who would be their targets.
Please notice that I said FUTURE. I think it is helpful to look at the root of the problem.
hmm, you put a lot of faith in the (W) puppet's words..
James
09-14-2003, 12:56 AM
By the puppet (W), I take it you mean the honorable :roll: George W. Bush, President of the United States.
In all honesty, I have no faith in him whatsoever. I think he is a buffoon.
FYI, I was vote number 43, pushing "more dangerous" to 51%...
Seiyuuki
09-14-2003, 01:25 AM
Any man who like David Eckstein is ain't so bad.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.