The Death of Safety

[Red]

[b]Over the past few months I have seen a number of things happen, including things such as strikes against Afghanistan and threats to Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.


War rears it's ugly head with America and Britain [i]still[/i] defying Iraq, even after a letter stating that UN inspectors are going to be allowed back into the country. Sure, Iraq can be a threat, but America and Britain are making themselves a target by bombing Iraq, they are virtually asking for trouble.

On a smaller scale there is the constant threat of crime, especially street crime. This is growing in the UK (regardless of statistics), with 3 children seriously injured or killed by children under 16 in the past [i]month[/i]. I feel that it's gone too far, especially in the UK. People are afraid to even set foot in certain areas in London, for fear they may be mugged, injured or even killed.
In my head it doesn't compute that someone should steal someone elses belongings, that they might have worked hard for, or have sentimental value to them, it is [i]their[/i] property and theirs alone, why should someone else have the right to take it?

Is crime as bad in America and in other places? What are your views on the whole Iraq situation?[/b]

[Mitch]

[color=red]My views on the Iraq situation? I think Bush is being very stupid. Doesn't he understand we Americans don't want another war? Anyways, if we kill Sodam Insane (his magical nickname) it won't do anything, another bad leader will come eventually. So I think it is a waste of time, lives, and [i]breath[/i] to start another war with Iraq. I'm against any war, because war to me is very stupid. I mean we humans aren't barbarians, so why do we have to kill ourselves for nothing?[/color]

[Char!]

[color=teal][size=1][b]I think this is all so bogus. Iraq has agreed to let weapons inspectors in on numerous occasions, but have always shut them out at some point. What makes anyone think this time will be any different?

Man, you'd think that someone would just get it over with and start WWIII already. I mean, it [i]will[/i] happen eventually, why put it off?



No, I'm not a trigger-happy madman who would look forward to war... Especially if it's in a few years, then my :butthead: will get drafted... :eek:


--Mike[/color][/size][/b]

[Manic Webb]

First of all, President Bush says he has the full support of the American people (I've yet to meet one, personally. And I live in America). Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it almost seems like G.W. Bush's grudge against Iraq almost has something to do with his father's grudge against Iraq. Of course, maybe I'm just being cynical :rolleyes:

[b]Anyway[/b], crime is a lot worse in some other countries than it is in the UK... I assume. I mean, there's some parts of the US I'd [i]never[/i] dare to venture into. I'm sure they're just as bad or maybe worse than the bad neighborhoods in the UK.

[James]

[color=royalblue]I don't know if the world is more dangerous now than it has been before...it's just that now there are new issues grabbing everyone's attention.

As far as the Iraq thing goes, I'm neutral on it. On the one hand it could potentially mean more terrorism...and it could take a long time to rebuild a democratic Government in Iraq.

On the other hand, people said that Hitler wasn't a threat when he first came to power. "We might not like him, but he's not a threat". Bzzt, wrong!

Saddam Hussein is unquestionably a threat. I watched a documentary on his life only recently...and you wouldn't believe some of the utterly [i]insane[/i], sick things he's done. He's a very sick, psychotic man. I wouldn't want that kind of man in charge of [i]any[/i] kind of military arsenal...[/color]

[Sui Generis]

The world isn't more dangerouse, we just have a media that informs us of everything.

I'm against war but I hope we get rid of Sodame Insane.

I'll put my thoughts short and sweet...

When someone murders someone else as in America, they are put to jail correct? The loose their rights and are confined. Would you put on of these physcotic killers at the head of a nation, that you rely on for natural recourses, and expect them to follow your ideals? I don't think so. He's a murder, and he has more weapons at his hand than we can even guess. Why let him roam free?

[Kent]

WHAT? you mean theres crime in the U.K.! even with how civil the europeans are. wow.
as for iraq. im not gonna bother. i will say that im the minority on the boards. i also think most of you have no clue what the truth of the world is. a good place to start would be iraq repeatedly saying... oh the inspectors can come back in, just not here, or here... and only if... and in a couple weeks from now, no sooner.
you guys should stick to otaku stuff and not politics.
and btw, i would love you all to waste time writing replies to me... i just love the stuff you come up with.
i also want to say it seems some of you are resonable minded, and so... i mean no dis-respect.

[Charles]

Bah, Sadam Hussein's offer to open his nation to inspections means less than people believe it does.

Iraq has agreed to admit inspectors many time before, only to block, harass, mislead an expel them. I feel that the Bush administration is completely justified in moving for a new U.N. resolution on inspections that accelerate the timetable for the inspections and that provides much tougher and definitive standards for judging Iraqi cooperation.

In any case, the inspectors are looking for a needle in a hay stack, lol. It's not like there's a neon sign pointing out hidden materials. Some of these weapons may be stored in a hole in a ground covered with tarpaulin and earth.

It would take [I]very[/I] good intelligence information to uncover something like that. Take into consideration that first time inspectors are easily tricked and useless and you see where I'm going.

Plus, if you think that the Iraqi guards act as benevolent hosts who readily make information available, you're naive. ;)

Experienced weapons inspectors have stated that they have faced locked doors with no keys, nervous fourteen year old guards with artillery, suddenly closed roads and the fact that their surprise inspections aren't really a surprise.

What I mean is that the Iraqis know what will be inspected because of intelligence or because they knew what was hidden where. The Iraqis aren't from the stone age either. They use high-tech filters to mask the signatures of dangerous materials.

I watched Bush's speech to the U.N. and he didn't limit his demands to mere weapons inspections. He wants Hussein out of power. I can't blame him. ;)

As for crime in America--it depends where you go. Urban areas with a concentrated population, poor educational opportunities and lackluster housing are bound to feature high crime rates.

In my opinion, recreational centers for youths should be much more plentiful. Such facilities provide role models for children and [I]give them something to do[/I] besides involving themselves with crime.

[SuruBlu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoGod of Death [/i]
[B]The world isn't more dangerouse, we just have a media that informs us of everything.

I'm against war but I hope we get rid of Sodame Insane.

I'll put my thoughts short and sweet...

When someone murders someone else as in America, they are put to jail correct? The loose their rights and are confined. Would you put on of these physcotic killers at the head of a nation, that you rely on for natural recourses, and expect them to follow your ideals? I don't think so. He's a murder, and he has more weapons at his hand than we can even guess. Why let him roam free? [/B][/QUOTE]

If this were a perfect world your assumptions would be correct but unfortunately our justice system is not that efficent. Many innocent people die for crimes they did not commit and as many guilty ones walk free. As far as the world being more dangerous, yes it is. One hundred years ago there were not constant wars, wars yes, but not one everytime you turn around. Unfortunately, it has become aparent that no matter how sincere humans are, we can never achieve peace. :(

[Kent]

sorry surublu, but war has been just about the only constant besides gravity.

[Sui Generis]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SuruBlu [/i]
[B]If this were a perfect world your assumptions would be correct but unfortunately our justice system is not that efficent. Many innocent people die for crimes they did not commit and as many guilty ones walk free. As far as the world being more dangerous, yes it is. One hundred years ago there were not constant wars, wars yes, but not one everytime you turn around. Unfortunately, it has become aparent that no matter how sincere humans are, we can never achieve peace. :( [/B][/QUOTE]

I respect your opinions, and how you said I agree with you. BUT thats not what I was saying, I'm not saying everytime a killer is put to death, or thrown in jail. I'm saying hypothetically....You wouldn't want a killer running a country with an arsenal the size of your own country would you?!

[Pastbyer]

[color=indigo]I'm not a supporter of war, but I don't get to decide what happens.

If you look carefully at history you'll notice that almost everything (with a few exceptions) are achieved through war and fighting. It's a human nature thing I guess. Humans are designed to fight when they want something. Even if it isn't that much of a good idea. So, since we can't really do that much as individuals, might as well just let history run it's course... Unless you're some powerful leader of course, then it's different.

...That's what I think anyway. Sorry if it's off-topic, I didn't have time to read through everything.[/color]:D

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]On the other hand, people said that Hitler wasn't a threat when he first came to power. "We might not like him, but he's not a threat".[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink] [size=1]-_- O...k... that really freaked me out right there....[/color] [/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoGod of Death [/i]
[B]We just have a media that informs us of everything[/b][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink] [size=1]Everything?!?! Bryan.... - - you've [i]got[/i] to be kidding.... [/color] [/size]

[Kent]

i would have to say that pastbyers has a point. i think the attitude of letting history take its course is a good one. but i also believe that war is not simply human nature. we are far too complex to sum up in such a simple statement. i believe war is really the product of a conflict between 2 types of people.
there are those who know what can be acheived with strength and violence, and use that to gain power, material goods, etc. by "evil" means. the other kind of person is the kind that reacts to the other, this later kind can not allow the violence and horror to continue and must act. in every conflict there are atleast two sides and more times than not, one of them is legitimatly fighting to rid the world of "evil".
saddam hussain is evil, if he wasnt, his role model wouldnt be stalin. he wouldnt take pleasure in watching executions. he would not have killed his own son. he would not allow his own people to die and live lives of disspair and poverty. saddam could easily bring wealth and prosperity to his people the way he has to himself, instead, he killed 5,000 of his own people (the kurds in the north) in the late 80's when they supported iranians.
my view is clear. the question is...
do you all see what myself, secretary powell, and president bush see?

[Kei]

[color=blue]Although I know that Saddam Hussien is a serious threat to international security, I'm all against going to war with Iraq. We don't need a repeat of Vietnam anytime soon, but if we engage Iraq, that's exactly what it's going to turn into, only on a larger scale. There has to be another way to go about getting weapons inspectors into Iraq without going as far as war. It's all quite idiotic in my opinion.[/color]

[Kent]

Vietnam, good god. do you realize what a far fetched, phil donahue sounding statment that is.

Just to put one thing to rest. lydon b johnson got us into vietnam and didnt want to get us out, in fact he ditched all his boys once he started the fight.
See... democrates dont know war, they know poll numbers and how to play the race card. republican know a little more, but thats all it takes to know the soldiers forced into the iraqi army arent gonna fight with the heart of v.c.
Second, iraq is a desert, that means no hidding in the brush. no hidding in the hundreds of miles of tunnels and most importantly there will be no stopping the armies at this or that parrallel. and for that matter there is no "cambodia" for the iraqis to run in and out of every time they are in trouble. we can win this.

No. it woulnt be easy, but we can do it.
Of course, if we decide on a policy of containment, every thing i have just said will be knulled out.
Long term occupation is the first step to trouble.

[Red]

[b]Hitler wasn't completely ignored by the British and French, as the French refortified the Maginot line and the BEF was readied, just Chamberlain (prime minister of Britain at the time) was using appeasement to try and calm Hitler down...

Staying on topic, I see how Saddam Hussein can be a major threat, and I can understand America being a little anxious about Kofi Annan letting UN weapons inspectors in all of a sudden but America should take the opportunity and act on it. Of course there is time to go into more "delicate" matters, but for now America and Britain are doing more harm than good.[/b]

[zidane11]

I really don't know what America should do with Iraq. If america attacks then they will retaliate, but if we don't then they will most likely try to develop more mass destruction weapons. Who knows, maybe peace talks will even work.

[Pastbyer]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]i would have to say that pastbyers has a point. i think the attitude of letting history take its course is a good one. but i also believe that war is not simply human nature. we are far too complex to sum up in such a simple statement. i believe war is really the product of a conflict between 2 types of people.
there are those who know what can be acheived with strength and violence, and use that to gain power, material goods, etc. by "evil" means. the other kind of person is the kind that reacts to the other, this later kind can not allow the violence and horror to continue and must act. in every conflict there are atleast two sides and more times than not, one of them is legitimatly fighting to rid the world of "evil". [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I didn't mean that war is human nature. I meant that the instinct to fight back to things is human nature. And not just physically fighting either. Isn't campaigning and protesting fighting back? It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we didn't have this instinct then we wouldn't have come this far in history. There are so many examples of this that I don't really need to give any.

But then, you must realise. There are always exceptions to rules and laws. Except for this one... Or... Um... Never mind.

Back to the topic, I don't think that America should fight Iraq [i]this way[/i]. I don't know much about how these law systems work but I feel that there should be better ways to solve these problems. Evil or not evil it doesn't matter. I mean doesn't Afghanistan people believe that the USA is evil?

Anyway, like I said, it's not for me to decide. But this thing my Mum said really got me thinking. She said that (quote) "America should stop being the world police and do something more helpful..." There's more to that quote but the first bit really stuffed this into a pea. (No offence to any Americans, she meant the USA government, not the common people.)[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B] democrates dont know war, they know poll numbers and how to play the race card.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]I'm no big fan of the Democrats, but you pulled that line straight from the TV, didn't you?

I don't think [i]you[/i] know much about war.

Anyway, for the most part...I'm somewhat surprised that the UN isn't in favor of using force. They are renegotiating the return of inspectors now...and Iraq is already saying that certain sites should be "pre-arranged" and such. What is the point of inspecting a country for weapons if you're going to [i]tell[/i] the Government where you're going in advance?

And even then, the inspectors' hands are tied by them not being allowed to enter certain non-Government sites.

The UN has been snubbed for the last decade. Frankly, some members of the Security Council are absolutely [i]stupid[/i] for thinking that inspections will work this time around. Of course they won't.

The question is, do you enforce your own resolutions? Or do you keep chatting and pleading and demanding...and getting nowhere?

I think the answer is pretty clear. If there is no punishment for crime (and not abiding by law), then where is the incentive for people to stop breaking that law? There is none.[/color]

[9mm Avenger]

Ah...George W. and the Never Ending Politcal Dribble.

Ever scence W. came into powa, America has been pretty much pouding on the middle east(not to mention Canada, with that fighter "accident" 0_o). Seems to me, George has a little bit of a problem with our turban wearing neighbours.

Don't get me wrong, George is doing a pretty good job...I doubt good 'ol Bill coulda handled this. But still, there are alternatives to fighting...Like talking. Of course the only talking Bush is doing is "Open Fire". Personally, I'm sick of it.

I wish they would just solve their problems...Without using guns.

[Kent]

Just so every one knows, i did that qoute james wrote on my own. thank you, ill take that as a compliment. it should be common knowledge if you ask me.

I mean come on, its not like the american democrates dont walk around trying to act like republicans are gonna take away old peoples medication, and make every one on the planet work for a buck fifty an hour.

I mean ab lincoln was a republican, eisenhower (who integrated schools) was a republican. us republicans just got a bad rap because democrates are really good at muck slinging and slander.

Other wise just one thing, talking doesnt get anything done with these people. maybe the canadians, but none of the middle east. just look at isreal. theyve talked and talked but nothing. if the muslims want something they never give up. maybe i can admire them for that.

[Pastbyer]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Majora's Mask [/i]
[B]I wish they would just solve their problems...Without using guns. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Yeah, if only the world that mankind has made was that simple.[/color]:(

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pastbyer [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Yeah, if only the world that mankind has made was that simple.[/color]:( [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink] [size=1]Exactly. As I learned from the last thread I started about bush...

[i]As long as mankind walks the Earth, there will never be peace...[/i][/color] [/size]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]just so every one knows, i did that qoute james wrote on my own. thank you, ill take that as a compliment. it should be common knowledge if you ask me.
i mean come on, its not like the american democrates dont walk around trying to act like republicans are gonna take away old peoples medication, and make every one on the planet work for a buck fifty an hour.
i mean ab lincoln was a republican, eisenhower (who integrated schools) was a republican. us republicans just got a bad rap because democrates are really good at muck slinging and slander.
other wise just one thing, talking doesnt get anything done with these people. maybe the canadians, but none of the middle east. just look at isreal. theyve talked and talked but nothing. if the muslims want something they never give up. maybe i can admire them for that. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]I don't agree with a lot of things that both Democrats and Republicans do.

Both parties do a lot of mud slinging. To deny that is to be incredibly naive.

I'm just saying that your partisan nature is only self-defeating. You're doing just what you accuse the Democrats of doing; slinging mud. :)[/color]