|
Author
|
Topic: Dangerous war-mongering?
|
Bronx 
Administrator
Member # 402
Member Rated:
|
posted
With America threatening the world with the possibility of pre-emptive nuclear strikes should they see fit, are we returning to a more cold war environment with 'rouge states'?
It is all very well and good to say you will use the most extreme force possible in retaliation for a chemical or biological even nuclear attack on America, it allies etc, but at least in the cold war there were clearly defined enemies and borders, now this is definitely not so. I believe that this declaration and the attempted justification of its legality under international law has the potential to be a very dangerous move. It is this exact kind of behaviour that provokes international terrorism.
Because of the American government saying things like this makes me agree with missile defence silos being installed in Britain, whereas before I was unsure because I doubted their need.
In a time like this, I believe it will only breed more of the enemies we are trying so hard to fight … rant done.
--------------------
Posts: 9347 (1.48 per day) | From: Gloucestershire, England | Registered: Feb 2002 (6282 days)
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Checkered
The sooner you fall behind, themore time you have to catch up
Member # 461
Member Rated:
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Junglist:
[QB]With America threatening the world with the possibility of pre-emptive nuclear strikes should they see fit, are we returning to a more cold war environment with 'rouge states'?
QB]
How can anyone pre-emptively strike ? I would call it simply striking out first. But that was news to me I did not remember reading or hearing anything like that. The cold war was more about Large rouge states not little can't feed themselves states. I think things are alot safer now (things will be alot safer once Bush is replaced) then they have been. But the news media plays these things up because they have NOTHING else to write about.
I mean Micheal Jackson has been quiet, Elvis has not been sited, and Castro has not been seen or heard of in a while. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Come back and I shall taunt you a second time.
Posts: 700 (0.11 per day) | From: Mooresville, NC | Registered: Mar 2002 (6230 days)
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bronx
Administrator
Member # 402
Member Rated:
|
posted
Pre-emptive and striking out first are pretty much no matter the justification the same thing. I totally agree on the point about the cold war, but only having that in history really to refer to it is like that. I feel as safe as always, maybe a little less because at least during the cold war we had MAD, mutually assured destruction, which held things off.
Communist states at this time, as much as western governments would like to have had you believe otherwise were fundamentally about the people, and did care for them. Most of today’s enemies of the west, they hold no real alliance to one country as such, more the concept of fundamentalist Islam, which by its nature if you die during a Jihad, you die a martyr and Allah will give you plenteous virgins and alcohol for your actions against killing a westerner.
I totally about the world being safer once Bush has gone, I personally believe he is more dangerous than Saddam could ever even try to be.
--------------------
Posts: 9347 (1.48 per day) | From: Gloucestershire, England | Registered: Feb 2002 (6282 days)
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
