View Full Version : Gee Dubbya Nukem
Anonymous
13-Feb-04, 10:14
Now I'm not one for watching much TV, but last night as I was getting set for me kip, I flicked onto beeb 2 only to be confronted by pictures of a madman ranting on about a nuclear threat from terrorists. Now I was pretty freaked by the idea of what GW did (is doing) over WOMD, so what has he got planned for this??? Must be a biggy as there's an election coming up.
With all this conventional war going on I almost completely forgot about dem bombs. But the look in GW's eye last night said "missile crisis" to me. It sounded like he was gearing up to scaring the people of the US into allowing him to "conquer this threat" with a quick, clean nuclear strike or two. Am I just a bit paranoid when it comes to this muppet or did anyone else see that there was nothing human beneath those beedee little eyes? :eek:
I still haven't worked out how the US can dictate nuclear non-proliferation to the world whilst (a) having a Nuclear Posture Review that recommends the development of new earth-penetrating 'bunker-busters' and (b) refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because they want to keep their options open for the future.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for non-proliferation. I just think it's somewhat hypocritical for the US to lead the charge... [disgust]
Your just paranoid Niall.
darklighter
13-Feb-04, 21:21
ooohhh Niall mind when we got to see Threads in Hutchies class in e high school!! :eek:
He's just a wee boy out of his depth.
Never mind Iraq, it's the US economy that will be his undoing.
Interestingly the neo-cons are deserting him over this issue. Like rats disembarking.
It seems common wisdom in the watering holes I hang out in that the whole Iraq issue is to do with oil.
Maybe.
But the British were messing up the sons of the desert back when people were still getting around in hansom cabs.
Could it be that international politics is like some sort of board game with swing states like the Turkey, the Middle East and Afghanistan prized as much for their military/strategic position on the globe as for their natural resources?
If that's the case then, to answer your question, we will be in for the maximum of sabre rattling to impress the voters with but no missiles , no new war.
Domination is the game. Not destruction.
anonnymus
13-Feb-04, 22:55
Perhaps it's time for al-qaeda to suicide bomb the Whitehouse. Then maybe that'll sort the nomark out once and for all. :evil :evil :evil
Caledonia
13-Feb-04, 23:41
There are just as many right wing warmongers waiting in the wings to take his place. Just as the actions of Israel and the US are used as recruiting propaganda for the suicide bombers, so any attack on the GWBs of this world will do just the same favour for the assholes who may hopefully otherwise lose their way in the next election.
Best thing the extremists could do is try talking to Bush...that certainly seems to be the way to unfold him.
I was privileged to hear President Clinton speak a few years ago. He is a breathtaking, inspiring orator, and a genuine intellect. Reminded me very much of my beloved Tony Benn. He would actually get something positive from 911, not use it to perpetuate an increasingly dangerous division.
Good thread Neil. Very good post.
Makes me really chuffed to see REAL freedom of speech in action.
;)
stuart page
13-Feb-04, 23:44
Naill, I make you right.
If those eyes don't burn red when he's alone, i'm ...well.. they do!! ref: Condolisa rice
Anonymous
14-Feb-04, 15:33
Well I thought as much stuart.
Now I'm not going to get knee deep in any discussion on the arms race, or any of that. It just really struck me, seeing him mention nuclear threats from terrorists, that this madman might actually be thinking about tactical strikes of some kind. And even though that might be a completely rediculas idea, the whole prospect of that head case in control of a nuclear arsenal worries me quite a bit. Then you see a photo like the one that was on the front page of the Scotsman? (broadsheet anyway) yesterday and I just know I'm right. No signs of serious cognative ability at all. Very frightning...
Its all very well to condemn our leaders for the monumental decisions they have to take.
What would you do instead? What saint do you expect to deliver you from your cynical and probably justified whining? What would matter if they did nothing to combat the menace of terrorist atrocities and every day was a Sept. 11?
Even if Jesus himself was president my bet would be we would still be at each others throats.
At this rate it canna last for another 14 billion years. My best bet is for it not to happen in my lifetime. :D :(
Gleeber,
you said "Our Leaders" div ye mean that numptie GW and his Tumshie pal T Blair?
you said "What would you do"? do you mean us the common pelebs?
you said that " even Jesus" would get the blame.....your are asking a Joiner from Nazereth till solve the worlds problems, when he has helped to cause the most of them.
Come on Man get real!!!!!!
Golach
Anonymous
15-Feb-04, 21:05
War does not equal peace.
Peace does not equal war.
Not really a difficult concept to grasp. If you keep sending people to war, more people will be killed and more will want to fight against you. Don't you think that the whole Iraq war could have been averted by actually listening to the people they went to war against?
If someone hates you, do you try and find out why they hate you or do you kill them?
For GW it seems to be the latter, what does it matter why these people (whoever they may be) hate the USA and all it stands for? He's not going to try and find out, he's going to kill them all, simple as that. Then when they're all dead, he will have no questions to answer. I see this as his only avenue here as the man does not have enough brain cells to take part in any sort of intelligent dialog, look at him on TV and thats scripted, he still looks like a monkey.
Its not because there is any reason to go to war, except that GW wants to. You'd be surprised how easy it is NOT to kill people, I do it every day with virtually no effort at all. And who is at who's throat? Politicians are at each other's throats, not us, sack em all I say. Imagine invading a country because you feel a part of the population is being discriminated against by the government, that the rights of those people are not the same as those in power, that the lands and wealth of these people can be taken away from them by force. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So just what motive do terrorists have? Why do they do it? Just for kicks? I don't think so. They obviously feel that they have a valid reason so what is it? Terrorists are not terrorists for fun, they have a reason to be so extreme, so why are we not trying to deal with that? I'm so sure that killing as many of them as we can find is going to make all those reasons just disappear, NOT!!!
So what happens if we don't fight them? Just let them lash on with whatever they want to do in their own country? Because at the end of the day, who has the perfect system? Which country has no faults? Which is the system that we should all live by and enforce on others? The "American Way"? no thanks, at least not the way its seen today. The right to enforce your way of life on others? no thanks. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Religion? mabee so but with hearty measures of common sense. Anarchy? I doubt it, too few of the population of the planet would be suited to that kind of environment so how could it ever take hold.
Strangely enough I think the advert for a certain game console gives us a clue, "the third place". Consider yourself, your own thoughts, restraints and actions to be the first place. Take the same of everyone else on the planet to be the second place. So then the third place is the interaction between you and someone else. The thing we should really be enforcing on people is a set of rules for the third place, how we interact with each other. So yes make it a bit bigger, the UK is the first place, Iraq is the second place, what do we both have to do in the third place to ensure that we all get along?
A simple enough question, yes. However the answer is not going to be simple and indeed the more variations of first and second places you have in the third, the more complex it gets. The only thing that I am absolutely sure of is that its not going to be murder, killing, war, call it what you like that finds us the answer, its going to be conversation and compromise.
You have to breath in and out, you do not have to go to war. :roll:
mysophales
16-Feb-04, 01:54
How could you talk to mad sad
i haven't seen GW or T Blair
killing hundreds of thousands of their own people
then bury them in mass unmarked graves.
And the chippy from nazerath may or may not be responsible
but religion has started more wars and killed more people
than all the GW's and T Blairs put together.
And again yes, if the politicians shouting for war
were the first on the front line
then wars would be a thing of the past.
Caledonia
16-Feb-04, 02:29
They seem happy enough to talk to Gaddafi.
If you fly aircraft into targets like the world trade centre and the pentagon and kill thousands of innocent US citizens you have got to expect some sort of reaction!
Fundamentalist Muslims are every bit as bigoted - more so - than the fundamentalist Christians who infest the bible belt of the USA.
What you have to ask yourself is, is there any way of meeting the demands of these people? I think not. Al Quaeda does not have a negotiating position. Al Quaeda members are in a sort of homicidal fugue state, a trance.
Therefore invading Afghanistan was an appropriate response for the US.
Invading Iraq was not. Sadam was a US puppet turned bad. The whole reason the US funded him was to keep fundamentalist Islam out of Iraq. Now it looks as if they have opened the doors.
The US has to realize that its major weapon for winning hearts and souls are Hollywood movies, rock n'roll, jeans, Harley Davidsons and all the other blissful acutriments of life in the early 21st century. The martyr bombers are promised the intimate services of dozens of virgins in the afterlife. The Western world offers them right now! No contest!!!
Strangely enough I think the advert for a certain game console gives us a clue, "the third place".
Careful there, Niall; that's getting mighty close to 'the third way'… yikes!!
What you have to ask yourself is, is there any way of meeting the demands of these people?
Go on then, what are their demands?
If you are going to say that we cannot meet their demands then you have to know what their demands are, otherwise what you meant to say was that we won’t meet their demands and that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
If we aren’t willing to enter into dialogue then the only way to win the ‘war on terror’ is, as Niall fears, complete annihilation of those who disagree with us.
Al Quaeda has no realisable demands - beyond the broad one of smashing Western imperialism.
To find an analogy with Al Qaeda one would have to go back to the Anabaptists and the 30 years war in Europe or even further back, to the Crusades.
Al Quaeda wants to repeal the 20th century and most of the 19th to create a fundamentalist Islam - a state in which women will be permanently veiled, criminals will be stoned to death, and the whole of modern science will be junked for the nattering negativity of old men with long beards who have given over their lives to the study of key texts in the Koran.
What are the negotiating goals of these fanatics? None that I can see. If you start off by assuming that western civilization is the creation of the Antichrist and that Bush and Blair (and you and I come to that) are the spawn of satan then there is really nothing to negotiate.
It's not a matter of oil. It's got nothing to do with imperialism. It's got nothing to do with how most Muslims lead their lives. It's pure, raging, dogmatic theocracy.
You can't negotiate with these tub-thumping lunatics!
Because there is nothing to negotiate.
And there's nothing to negotiate because we are the spawn of satan.
To be fair to Al Quaeda - they have been perfectly clear about this.
But simpering Liberals just don't get the message. This compulsion to be loved will be our downfall. It's the opposite of paranoia. It's the belief that, deep down, everyone loves us - even when they are ramming airliners into tall towers.
Al Quaeda has no realisable demands - beyond the broad one of smashing Western imperialism […] What are the negotiating goals of these fanatics? None that I can see […] It's pure, raging, dogmatic theocracy. You can't negotiate with these tub-thumping lunatics! […] But simpering Liberals just don’t get the message.
As I suspect I am already somebody who you would describe as a ‘simpering Liberal’ I suppose I can’t drop any lower in your esteem by pointing out the errors in your 'might-makes-right' view of this situation.
First, Al-Qaeda have made their demands very clear. They are:
1) Peace in Palestine
2) The withdrawal of all foreign military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
Virtually impossible demands to meet? Yes. But demands are the starting point for negotiation and you work on them until an acceptable compromise is found.
You’re also forgetting that in the 1980s we (the west) were not only able to negotiate with Bin Laden; we were collaborating with him against the Soviets.
Rather than a flat-out loathing of anything non-Islamic, a good deal of Al-Qaeda’s (and specifically Bin Laden’s) hatred for the west stems from Saudi Arabia inviting half-a-million US troops onto their soil after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden was a little miffed because his offer to provide an army (the one he’d had kicking around doing nothing since the Soviets had left Afghanistan) to protect the kingdom had just been turned down.
As his activities increased he came under more pressure (such as when the US pressured Sudan to expel him) and his hatred became more extreme.
In no way am I excusing him or his organisation in their use of terrorism, but to simply blame the whole situation on Islam and to deny the possibility of any kind of dialogue or diplomatic solution is naïve.
If you think that a ‘war on terrorism’ without any attempt to negotiate with the enemy will ever be won then perhaps you need to think back on our time with the IRA.
I understood al quaeda's demands to be those which Rich mentions, The desire for a fundamentalist islamic world - no more no less. Theirs is not a bargaining position, not a situation which is swayed by compromise and negotiation. It is an absolute postion. They believe they are "absolutely" in the right. How does one compromise or negotiate with people who have no intention of giviing an inch. Caledonia mentions that "they" are happy to talk to gaddaffi - isnt that because Gaddaffi has shown signs of being prepared to compromise and negotiate? It is right that the powers that be should enter into discussions with people like gadaffi and sadam hussein if he had been prepared to give an inch.That is how peace is going to arise and maybe it hints that some of our illustrious leaders are not coming at this from the pleasure of war point of view that people suggest, because they could just have bombed Libya out of sight had that been the case.
It is an interesting point that Gleeber makes about who would do the job the leaders do - arent they damned if they do and damned if they dont? There is an interesting book by William Muir called "The 18th pale descendant" It isnt strictly dealing with these issues but it raises interesting points about moral responsibility. It outlines a society where the death penalty has been reintroduced following a referendum where those who voted yes were agreeing that they would be prepared to be the executioner in the event they were called upon to do so. The main character is called upon to do his duty and it looks at the effect this has on him as part of the story.It is not pleasant. We vote, we vote leaders in to do the job of leading the country and making the decisions, if we dont like it we vote them out and give someone else the chance to make a mess of it. Thats demoocracy folks. How many of us would want to be responsible for the decisions the leaders of our countries have to make? I guess none of us here or we would be standing for office surely!
Niall talks about the third place, he mentions that we should be enforcing on others is a set of rules for how we interact with each other - to do that we have to come back to where i started this meandering - compromise and negotiation. Should we just let them - whoever they may be "lash on" with whatever they choose? We look around the world and we have the blood of people on our hands, the genocide in rwanda, the killings in cambodia, the murder of the jews? Are we satisfied with a shrug of our shoulders after the fact when we say- Well its their country, they should be allowed to do what they like... International agreements have to find a way of dealing with these horrific actions in a way which STOPS them. Look around the world today and see in the faces of children from some of the atrocities and be glad we did nothing? I think not.
I have no answers either, i dont like Bush, i dont think America should assume the role of World policeman, but in the absence of anyone else being any good at it - and i incude the UN in that statement, lI breathe a sigh of relief that it IS America - even Bush's America, and not Saddam Husseins Iraq, or Gaddaffi's Libya , Mao's china, Stalins russia or Hitlers Germany.
I understood al quaeda’s demands to be those which Rich mentions, The desire for a fundamentalist islamic world – no more no less.
Sadly that’s the message most of us are hearing every time we turn on the news or read a paper. But it just isn’t true. Bin Laden set out the demands of Al Qaeda in one of his many taped messages and they are as I referenced previously.
Yes, he calls for Jihad. Yes, he calls for Muslims to rise up against the west. But that’s more an elaborate recruitment campaign than a glimpse of his ultimate goal.
Think about it for a minute. A few calls to arms using his twisted interpretation of the Qur’an and Bin Laden has an ever-growing following of those who see our failure to consider terrorism or oppressive regimes anywhere but under Islam as a threat to their religion.
And who can honestly blame them for thinking we hate their religion? Are we really going to sit here and say that the only regimes in this world that should be considered dangerous are Islamic ones? Are we really going to say that there are no terrorists in this world except Muslims? Have we been looking very hard since 9/11? Really?
The truth is that we are actively alienating the very people we see as a threat. We are pushing devout Muslims to the edge of extremism and we are pushing those already on the edge over to Jihad.
Should we just let them get on with whatever they want? Of course not. But if anybody can explain to me how force of arms alone is going to stop terrorism then I am all ears.
Opening communication channels with these people won’t be easy but it has to be done. Until it is we will just go on living with the threat of attack and the fear of terrorism.
----
They believe they are "absolutely" in the right.
Don't we all?
Are we really going to sit here and say that the only regimes in this world that should be considered dangerous are Islamic ones? Are we really going to say that there are no terrorists in this world except Muslims?
Should we just let them get on with whatever they want? Of course not. But if anybody can explain to me how force of arms alone is going to stop terrorism then I am all ears.
Opening communication channels with these people won’t be easy but it has to be done. Until it is we will just go on living with the threat of attack and the fear of terrorism.
Nowhere did i suggest that the only terrorists in the world are muslims. There are many many "terrorists" and many many opressive regimes. I believe force of arms alone is not going to stop these people - whoever they may be. However, i do beleive there has to be a way to ensure that negotiation and compromise takes place - especially when the lives of innocent women and children are at risk, either from the catastrophe that is war or from the terror of opressive regimes.The threat of armed response may be the only way to do that - like i said - i am not happy that Bush might see that as Americas role, but somehow in the 21st century we have to figure this out. Lots of people say "we must open communication channels" but no one has come up with any suggestions of what else to do when this fails - when despots and murderers say "**** you mate".
1) Peace in Palestine
2) The withdrawal of all foreign military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
These are the demands of Al Qaeda. Delivered on a video tape created in a cave somewhere. With this we are supposed to negotiate?
Peace in Palestine is easy to say. Of course behind this demand lurks a whole series of Bin Laden style dominos. How do you create peace in the Middle East? By destorying Israel, by destroying the governments of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Libya - because these are secular, non-islamic states. Let's roll up Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen and, for good measure, restore the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The withdrawal of all foreign military forces from the Arabian Peninsula is not a negotiating position. It is simply an attempt to remove the biggest obstacle to an Islamic state - the USA.
And all of this comes from a series of terrorist covens - like the Red Brigades in Germany, another group with whom negotation was impossible. Who elected Al Quaeda to be the voice of Arabia and the Middle East?
The USA and Pakistan made cynical use of Al Quaeda in the fight against the Soviet Union. So to an extent we may be reaping what we have sown. But that's no excuse for wimping out on civilized values and delivering millions of people in the Middle East to the Muslim equivalent of the Third Reich.
Squidge,
I know that you didn't say that all Muslims are terrorists, but that is sometimes the impression we (in general) give. You and I recognise that there are plenty of non-Muslim terrorists and oppressive regimes, but our governments seem to be a whole lot more lenient towards them. Trade sanctions against Zimbabwe? Why haven't we bombed seven shades out of Mugabe?
I agree with you entirely that the threat of armed force may be the only way to ensure negotiation takes place, but that's not what we are currently using force for. We are using force to exterminate the 'evildoers' and that's really all there is to it. We aren't the world's policemen, we are the world's executioner.
Do you honestly think anybody will come and sit around our table when the best welcome they can expect is to be given an orange boiler-suit and a trip to Guantanamo?
---
Rich,
With this we are supposed to negotiate?
Well, yes. What's the alternative?
It's all very well for Tony's leader to declare himself ready to stamp out terrorism wherever it may be; but how, exactly, do you suppose he is going to achieve that? How is he going to know which of the 1,704,000,000 Muslims on this planet actually want to kill him and which just really don't like him very much? Sure, people at either extreme are easy to spot, but what about the ones who don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves?
You're right; peace in Palestine isn't easy and probably won't lead to peace in the middle east, and the withdrawal of foreign military forces just isn't going to happen. But to just throw our hands in the air and declare military force the only option is to condemn us to decades of fighting and bloodshed.
Perhaps it's just another sign of my simpering liberalism, but I would have thought that if the only way to impose our 'civilised values' on the world is from the flight-deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln then perhaps we aren't as civilised as we would like to think.
JJC - here's the root of our disagreement.
I happen to believe that there is a need for armies and weapons of war. I am sure you would agree that the American Civil War was a good idea. As was the war against Hitler. Or the Scottish wars of independence.
Sometimes soldiers have to keep the peace. Cyprus being a case in point. Or Northern Ireland. And sometimes just because those soldiers are there, doing their duty, it becomes possible for peace to break out. Cyprus again and Northern Ireland.
We might more fruitfully debate on the topic of the right and proper and effective use of US military power. I am concerned that the US lacks the intestinal fortitude for the task at hand in Iraq. ALso they lack the political creativity and the dollar investment necessary to get some sort of representative government up and running both in Afghanistan and in Iraq..
I happen to think the war on Iraq was almost completely unjustified and that it was worse than a crime - it was a mistake. It took place because Bush and Blair lied to their electorates.
As a result we are stuck with a hellish mess.
We can't scuttle off because we would be betraying friends, allies and clients. SO what do we do? Damned if I know! It looks like we are in there for the long haul.
This thread began with a discussion of nuclear weapons. Pakistan has the bomb, so does India, Israel at a last count had over 200. That's where the danger lies. Not in the Bush White House. Bush is a bungler, I agree. But not a mad bomber.
Anyone for some Iraqui music?
http://www.iraqimusic.com/
Rich,
I'm not actually sure that we disagree all that much.
Much as I think we'd all like to live in a world without crime or war I've no illusions when it comes to the need for armed forces. I'd disagree that war can ever be 'a good idea' but that's just semantics because I certainly agree that good came of those you mention.
I also agree with you about the war in Iraq. Whether they intentionally lied to us or they just didn’t know that Saddam wasn’t the immediate threat they imagined (which would make them truthful but incompetent), we shouldn’t have gone to war until ALL other options were exhausted… starting with Blix. But we’re there now and we can’t just cut and run. We’ve made a bit of a mess and we need to clear it up.
I see that the threat and, when absolutely necessary, the use of force against our enemies is sometimes required to broker peace. My concern is that brokering peace does not seem to be on Bush’s (and therefore Blair’s) mind at the moment. Until it is we are just going to go from one conflict to the next. Oh I’ve no doubt that we’ll win each and every one, but peace won by literally beating down those who oppose you is never going to be a lasting peace.
This is where the truth of the troubles in Northern Ireland might be a lesson well learned for Bush. It seems to me that far from ‘breaking out’, the level of peace we now see in Northern Ireland has been dragged out, kicking and screaming, by years of talks, compromises and deals. Yes, the soldiers presence on the ground had a lot to do with forcing the parties together around a table, but peace did not miraculously appear just because the squaddies were there. One can only hope that Kerry has a better grasp of this than Bush seems to.
As for Bush not being a mad bomber… I think I’m going to reserve judgment on that one until that chap with the ‘football’ doesn’t follow him quite so closely anymore.
Caledonia
18-Feb-04, 00:12
With respect, and you can check another post somehwere her to find out I was on all the marches and demos against this war, OF COURSE we should have stormed in and crushes that despot.
but we should have been absolutely clear why. Screw the UN.
We should do the same everywhere else we have conclusive evidence of human rights abuses, never mind the weapons we all have.
Fo all that the US has an atrocious HR record, it pales into insignificance to those like Sadam, Pinochet, MUGABE, but we should still hold them to account.
Let us CRUSH them all, swiftly and without mercy, in the name of all of us, Muslim, Christain, Jew, Hindu, etc., and all the rest of us in the secular world.
When we saw what the Nazis had done we PROMISED ourselves as mankind we would never allow it again. And so we do, year in year out.
Never negotiate with cold killers, whether it is Bush or Mugabe. Crush them, let the world police itself.
Hail Caledonia - stern and wild!
(Scott? Burns? can't remember who penned the above. But thank you, Caledonia)
There's more as I rummage through what's left of my Miller Academy education.
"Hail, Caledonia, stern and wild
Meet nurse for a poetic child.
(Sounds like something from the Lay of the Last Minstrel...)
just my lil b it as an american
GW is an idiot and i think that most of the american populance has realised this
i very seriously doubt that this would ever come to nukes. he would never get teh permission to do it.. not only would congress not allow it but america has a basic law.
i dont know how many are aware of it though
if a third of the citizens of america do not agree with the way america is run then the gov can be overthrown and a new gov instigated.
its a bit of a fail safe to stop an power hungry mad man IE bush to take to much power.
it would be something though if he was to be impeached right before the elections though.. ahh well we can dream cant we?
me personally it looks like kerry will be our new president come nov.
the one thing the entire democratic party has in common is that they all without a doubt hate bush!
and they have united in that and will stand behind as one with who ever wins the priliminarys. +
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.