The War/Panic Thread

[Gizmo]

Why didn't they wait until Obama before creating this mess? Maybe it would help :'(

 

Well, but at least it isn't with Mccain, he looks worse than bush.

 

Yes, because Russia and Georgia are going to wait until after the American elections before doing anything.

 

While their at it, why not wait until Putin steps down, that will make things easier for them maybe.

 

Maase, seriously, get a grip.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Speaking of Obama...I'm not so sure if he will be able to handle all this...Really an American president is the president of the Western world. He seems a little soft and green behind the gills.

[Dyson]

Speaking of Obama...I'm not so sure if he will be able to handle all this...Really an American president is the president of the Western world. He seems a little soft and green behind the gills.

 

Funny you should say that, Maase's comment made me think exactly the same thing.

[blender]

the problem is that if the americans people feel threated or scared, they will vote for a war president... so good bye obama, hello bush spawn.

 

Iran are waiting for the next US president and so to are al queda (not that they are related)

[Guest Maase]

Yes, because Russia and Georgia are going to wait until after the American elections before doing anything.

 

While their at it, why not wait until Putin steps down, that will make things easier for them maybe.

 

Maase, seriously, get a grip.

 

Damn, bad choice of words again, i didn't tell that they should wait, i told that it was a bad time to start this mess, Bush maybe will put it worse, you get what i mean?

 

If we were lucky, they would resist more months before doing a big war like this, you got what i meant?

 

Im really sorry that my favouritie forum is English, but whateverm, there's no rules against Portugueses, so you'l have to face my mistakes over and over again, don't take them seriously, most of the time you understood what i meant wrongly...

[Supergrunch]

I have to say this thread is nicely demonstrating why I'm a pacifist.

[Dyson]

Damn, bad choice of words again, i didn't tell that they should wait, i told that it was a bad time to start this mess, Bush maybe will put it worse, you get what i mean?

 

If we were lucky, they would resist more months before doing a big war like this, you got what i meant?

 

Im really sorry that my favouritie forum is English, but whateverm, there's no rules against Portugueses, so you'l have to face my mistakes over and over again, don't take them seriously, most of the time you understood what i meant wrongly...

 

 

Wait - what you meant to say was not that it would have made more sense for them to have waited, but that it was inconvenient that they started it now, and not when someone with their head screwed on is in power? I see what you're saying and it's made me think of something new. What if they are TRYING to get McCain elected, or someone with better experience/connections to Russia etc as part of it all?

 

The conspiracy theories behind this could go anywhere and everywhere, really. Though I think the timing of it isn't a coincidence, now that you mention it. It's probably strategic timing not only because of the Olympics but because of the American elections. It'll definitely change the way people think in America, and whoever can get America on their side might as well have a great big "VICTORY" flag.

 

...but I'd rather not get stuck in to the back story of it all. My crazy, tired musings could open me up to a world of new possibilities and I dunno if I could handle them, myself :P

[Guest Maase]

Wow, do you think they are that smart? (No offense to Russians in this forum xD)

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

the problem is that if the americans people feel threated or scared, they will vote for a war president... so good bye obama, hello bush spawn.

 

Iran are waiting for the next US president and so to are al queda (not that they are related)

 

Brrr... Al Queda + global Muslim fanatics + Iran + North Korea + Russia = "...lol ^^'...The free world is fucked"...

 

(edit)

 

Then you've got the inbetweeners like China, old allies that are getting pissed with America like India and Brazil and growing oil rich and unstable nations like Nigeria who could just join the bidder with the biggest offer.

 

America have the weapons to be sure, but looking at Vietnam and Iraq, I somewhat doubt their military prowess. They seem to 'fail' at unconventional, guerilla-like warfare - which developing nations are masters of. Because of that, open nuclear warfare just seems more feasible.

[Dyson]

Of course they are. It's not simply a case of "Hey that looks like a tasty piece of land, let's take it". They'll have been planning this for months, if not years. The timing is perfect.

[Guest Maase]

Okay, this is getting awful in my eyes :X

 

I think im going to sleep, let's hope im still alive tomorrow, maybe this night it will start the war :X

[Guest Stefkov]

If you think the bomb is scary then you should check out nerve agents - these can be sprayed over large areas and are invisible to taste or smell - if one droplet comes in contact with you - your dead in 15 seconds - happy days!

I don't know really. Both sounds just as scary as each other.

You have the quiet, deadly nerve agent. It'd be hella scary to be on an underground one day and some terrorists let off..I forget the name. I'm sure it's got something in common with rice, the name I think. Just to imagine hundreds of unsuspecting people drop down in pain, screaming and then die.

But then the bomb, not only is there a massive metal shell coming at you and will destroy a few blocks itself but then there's the stuf inside which will destroy more than just those blocks. Plus that cobalt bomb I read about releasing gamma rays... you aint safe in a bunker.

But it's good we can say 'happy days' and laugh it off. Then it strikes home that a group of people can play the part of God and shape the world to something else, to whatever they want: no Jews, no Asians, whatever. It's scary.

If Hitler did what he did in the 1900s with just gas chambers (I know its not just the chambers), just think what can happen in this age with products far worse than the gas used then.

[Dyson]

I don't know really. Both sounds just as scary as each other.

You have the quiet, deadly nerve agent. It'd be hella scary to be on an underground one day and some terrorists let off..I forget the name. I'm sure it's got something in common with rice, the name I think. Just to imagine hundreds of unsuspecting people drop down in pain, screaming and then die.

But then the bomb, not only is there a massive metal shell coming at you and will destroy a few blocks itself but then there's the stuf inside which will destroy more than just those blocks. Plus that cobalt bomb I read about releasing gamma rays... you aint safe in a bunker.

But it's good we can say 'happy days' and laugh it off. Then it strikes home that a group of people can play the part of God and shape the world to something else, to whatever they want: no Jews, no Asians, whatever. It's scary.

If Hitler did what he did in the 1900s with just gas chambers (I know its not just the chambers), just think what can happen in this age with products far worse than the gas used then.

 

 

Nice post. Truly distilled fear in the base of my heart.

 

Ricin or something?

[Guest Maase]

Argh, i can't leave this forum, im stuck here...

 

Okay, now it is, i'l go... Urgh...... Aaahhhhhhh.... Okay, bye...

[Fierce_LiNk]

I did say "more likely". I never by any means meant that everyone who is intellectual doesn't need discipline - hell, I'm a lazy shit, I'm sure I'd benefit from something like that and I got straight A's in my exams last week. I just meant that the 16 system would be a more targeted way of doing it. People who leave at 16 are more likely to be the ones who need it - but not always, obviously. It would be a very straight forward way of attempting to address the growing cultural problems we have in this country.

 

Also, this example was intended for use in the context of merely introducing it as a way of curbing those problems, and was in general unrelated to my other points which were aimed at a war time crisis implementation of the same thing.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, I was just pointing out that I think it's wrong to assume that academically gifted or sound pupils are less likely to cause problems. In some cases, they might even be more likely, due to feeling unfulfilled, or unstretched.

 

Maybe it would be better for everyone at that age to get the same treatment? That way you're not just targeting a certain group, but rather targeting that age range as a whole?

 

Yes, I know. But the general idea of that statement was to show that it would be the law - something you can't merely avoid, and by comparing it to a simple thing as an MOT I was attempting to show a wider context of that.

 

I do understand what you meant, but there's a difference in moral issues with paying car tax and doing national service. But yeah, I do agree with your general idea, that both are laws and should be upheld, and so forth.

 

 

They are going to war to fight for what they believe in. If their beliefs allow them to do so, and ours don't, whose beliefs are going to win? It's an unfortunate truth that violence can often prevail.

 

It's true that both sides go into war thinking that it is them who are fighting for the 'right' reasons. Like somehow, we always assume that we're the good, and that the enemy is the bad. It's just straightforward mindgames, really.

 

We shouldn't be going to war, really, other than the reason stated. I disagree with the concept in general. However, it is a sad truth that the way this world works conflict is inevitable. Going once again with the train of thought "their beliefs may "allow" them to fight", if we are attacked, we aren't going to just surrender, are we?

 

So, you're official stance on war is that you don't agree with it, right?

To me, I just don't understand the reasoning for it. Both sides would contain armies, with soldiers who probably wouldn't want to be there, so why fight? I just don't think war should be the answer.

 

The majority of my arguments thus far have been based on the idea of 'attacking'. With being attacked, it's not quite the same. First of all, I'd want to know why the hell we were being attacked in the first place!

 

Also yes, the country is letting the people down somewhat, but if it was impossible to reach diplomatic agreement - sometimes people just plain don't agree, like you and me on this matter. I doubt me replying to your post will have any effect on your beliefs on the matter, same way we will be hard pushed to do anything to convince Al Qaeda round to our way of thinking.

Shit, did I just compare Flinky to Al Qaeda? Sorry, please don't take offence to that, it wasn't meant in with any kind of subtext :p

 

Hehe, I didn't take offend, I understand what you were getting at.

 

But surely there is reasoning behind why a country would want to go to war? With Al Qaeda, and probably most other organisations or countries who go to war, it's all about power. Now, shouldn't more be done to stop these sorts of dangerous people getting into power in the first place?

 

It's not that I don't respect their beliefs. I agree that war isn't right and I'd rather not fight. But frankly, if it's between my beliefs, or simply surrendering those beliefs and allowing myself to be overrun by people who disagree, I know which I'd choose.

 

I think you need to feel proud of your own beliefs. Maybe it would just be a priority game, where you think "ok, I believe killing is wrong, but I believe that protecting my wife and child are more important, so I'm willing to do anything" or something. I dunno, war is such a mindfuck.

 

Surely a country is the people in it? What else is a country if not that?

 

I can't word my reply to this part properly so I'll leave it at this; one persons view against the whole doesn't necessarily mean it becomes "people killing people", thats a very selective way of looking at it.

 

I dunno, most of what I'm trying to say probably isn't coming out properly.

 

A country is land. Habitat, where you live. The place where you work. I think the people in it are something different entirely. When a country invades another, I usually think of it as a power thing, that they want to repossess that land, and have it for their own. Kinda like an infestation. If that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

Heh, its a difficult thing to word, isn't it. I'm not even sure if I worded it exactly how I wanted it to be worded.

 

But surely that is what war is. People killing people. I remember somebody made a quote about "layers" and that on one layer, football is just 22 men running around a pitch chasing a ball. Surely people killing people is one layer of war?

[Gizmo]

I agree with most of what you're saying, I was just pointing out that I think it's wrong to assume that academically gifted or sound pupils are less likely to cause problems. In some cases, they might even be more likely, due to feeling unfulfilled, or unstretched.

 

Maybe it would be better for everyone at that age to get the same treatment? That way you're not just targeting a certain group, but rather targeting that age range as a whole?

 

I guess I am somewhat making an assumption there, but to put it in simple terms; I'm 16, and I know that I'd consider most people who have left school as of this summer more likely to benefit from it than most people still at school. Though obviously not everyone who leaves will need it and not everyone who stays won't, it's just a filtration system to reduce the aggro.

 

 

 

I do understand what you meant, but there's a difference in moral issues with paying car tax and doing national service. But yeah, I do agree with your general idea, that both are laws and should be upheld, and so forth.

 

We agree on something!

 

 

 

 

It's true that both sides go into war thinking that it is them who are fighting for the 'right' reasons. Like somehow, we always assume that we're the good, and that the enemy is the bad. It's just straightforward mindgames, really.

 

And this is the nature of humans; sad, really.

 

A small scale idea of things is how I think Celtic are a better football team than Rangers, but some of my mates disagree; and yet, we are still that - mates. However, there will always be some who fight and argue, and indeed as has happened in the past, kill, over such a petty argument.

 

 

 

So, you're official stance on war is that you don't agree with it, right?

To me, I just don't understand the reasoning for it. Both sides would contain armies, with soldiers who probably wouldn't want to be there, so why fight? I just don't think war should be the answer.

 

As a general concept - humans killing other humans blindly, without knowing who those others are - yes, I disagree with it. I mean, theres this moment on a tv show called NCIS, the episode is centred around a US marine from WWII, and how he may or may not have killed his friend in battle. To prove his innocence, since there were no US soldiers from that battle left alive, they got a Japanese soldier to do so. And then the two, who had shot at each other with the intention of killing - shared a glass of sake.

 

The majority of my arguments thus far have been based on the idea of 'attacking'. With being attacked, it's not quite the same. First of all, I'd want to know why the hell we were being attacked in the first place!

 

Haha, of course, this is all hypothetical with no real scenario in mind, and things would change depending on circumstances.

 

 

 

Hehe, I didn't take offend, I understand what you were getting at.

 

But surely there is reasoning behind why a country would want to go to war? With Al Qaeda, and probably most other organisations or countries who go to war, it's all about power. Now, shouldn't more be done to stop these sorts of dangerous people getting into power in the first place?

 

Again this point is more a by-product of the situation being hypothetical. But yes, people like Saddam Hussein shouln't really be allowed to get into power in the first place to make a conflict necessary, but it's impossible to prevent it entirely. How can the voting public know what the guy might do? I mean, we might vote David Cameron into office and then he could turn into a war mongering maniac, and shoot people who don't re-elect him. Theres no way of telling

 

 

 

I think you need to feel proud of your own beliefs. Maybe it would just be a priority game, where you think "ok, I believe killing is wrong, but I believe that protecting my wife and child are more important, so I'm willing to do anything" or something. I dunno, war is such a mindfuck.

 

Definately, I guess this is what I was getting at.

 

 

 

A country is land. Habitat, where you live. The place where you work. I think the people in it are something different entirely. When a country invades another, I usually think of it as a power thing, that they want to repossess that land, and have it for their own. Kinda like an infestation. If that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

Yeah, but land can't go to war with land. Unless you count Earthquakes

 

People defending their land is basically country to country, no?

 

Heh, its a difficult thing to word, isn't it. I'm not even sure if I worded it exactly how I wanted it to be worded.

 

But surely that is what war is. People killing people. I remember somebody made a quote about "layers" and that on one layer, football is just 22 men running around a pitch chasing a ball. Surely people killing people is one layer of war?

 

Yes, but you shouldn't think of football on such a 1 dimensional, simplistic level, as it doesn't give the full picture. Same deal with war.

[Shino]

Neither do I really like the idea of taking somebody else's life because I'm being told to do so. Why? What can possibly be so important that you need to kill somebody else? Money? Power? Grow the fuck up.

 

I'd say an ideal is worth dying for. Besides that there's resources, which is another worthy but less noble cause.

 

I think your right, and the Russian's know it too. This whole Georgia incident is really bad stuff! They might well have some right to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the problem is that in their minds they also have right to Georgia as well. I can easily see them on Georgian soil before the end of the year (they technically are now, except the land wasn't under Georgian control).

 

I worry that this whole thing could explode in to WWIII, it just depends how greedy Russia decide to be and how strong they think they are.

 

I don't think it will escalate to something like that, probably never will again. The only big country that can really go around fighting everyone is Russia because even after the fall of communism they still aren't big enough in the world economy, which means not much can directly affect them in terms of economy. The US and the EU both need each other to sell their exports and China needs both to sell their exports too and to keep foreign investment, none of this three big players can attack the other.

 

But I've always though that a country should never be as big as Russia, that place needs to be fractured.

 

PS: Can't believe the amount of people that reply to Maase.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I guess I am somewhat making an assumption there, but to put it in simple terms; I'm 16, and I know that I'd consider most people who have left school as of this summer more likely to benefit from it than most people still at school. Though obviously not everyone who leaves will need it and not everyone who stays won't, it's just a filtration system to reduce the aggro.

 

So, basically using it for people with behavioural problems, or likely to cause trouble, etc. It probably would give them something to do/occupy them with, so its definitely something worth looking at. Whether it would solve problems countrywide, who knows.

 

We agree on something!

 

I'll go crack open the champagne.

 

 

And this is the nature of humans; sad, really.

 

A small scale idea of things is how I think Celtic are a better football team than Rangers, but some of my mates disagree; and yet, we are still that - mates. However, there will always be some who fight and argue, and indeed as has happened in the past, kill, over such a petty argument.

 

I guess some people just take things too far. In one sense, maybe to them they are fighting a war, except instead of fighting for their country, they're fighting for their team. Maybe they're just using their team as an excuse for a fight, it's anybody's guess.

 

As a general concept - humans killing other humans blindly, without knowing who those others are - yes, I disagree with it. I mean, theres this moment on a tv show called NCIS, the episode is centred around a US marine from WWII, and how he may or may not have killed his friend in battle. To prove his innocence, since there were no US soldiers from that battle left alive, they got a Japanese soldier to do so. And then the two, who had shot at each other with the intention of killing - shared a glass of sake.

 

That seems like a good episode, would like to catch up on that one and watch it sometime.

 

Haha, of course, this is all hypothetical with no real scenario in mind, and things would change depending on circumstances.

 

Are we on three things we agree with now? Haha.

 

Again this point is more a by-product of the situation being hypothetical. But yes, people like Saddam Hussein shouln't really be allowed to get into power in the first place to make a conflict necessary, but it's impossible to prevent it entirely. How can the voting public know what the guy might do? I mean, we might vote David Cameron into office and then he could turn into a war mongering maniac, and shoot people who don't re-elect him. Theres no way of telling

 

If David Cameron was to get into power and suddenly change into a war mongering maniac, wouldn't his entire basis of getting into power be a lie, then? Surely that's basically what's going on with some countries at the moment, with the ones in power rigging elections, and targeting candidates who will oppose them.

 

The problem is, I guess there is no "higher" authority. If David Cameron did turn into a maniac, who would he have to answer to? I'm not saying that there should be a higher authority or not, but...I dunno.

 

[quote

Definately, I guess this is what I was getting at.

 

 

Yeah, but land can't go to war with land. Unless you count Earthquakes

 

People defending their land is basically country to country, no?

 

Yes, but you shouldn't think of football on such a 1 dimensional, simplistic level, as it doesn't give the full picture. Same deal with war.

 

People are representing that country , but imo, its the people against the people.

 

True, there's a lot more going on than just 22 men on one surface. But, it is one point of view. I'm not saying that is how I fully interpret war. But, what I'm saying is that, in one sense, war is people killing people.

[Mundi]

Personally I would avoid a war, though I doubt there will be a time where mandatory service will be instated in little old Iceland but IF that would happen I´d go hiding in the hills until it all blows over.

If an invading force would appear, to threaten all that is here

I´d go away ´til everything is clear

In the end it dosen´t matter who wins

Because life will go on as it always will.

 

Meh

[mcj metroid]

I managed to read through this entire thing.. Reason i never posted was because I really know very little and my posts would't be much betterthan maase or anyone else.

 

But it was a great read thanks

[Gizmo]

If David Cameron was to get into power and suddenly change into a war mongering maniac, wouldn't his entire basis of getting into power be a lie, then? Surely that's basically what's going on with some countries at the moment, with the ones in power rigging elections, and targeting candidates who will oppose them.

 

I guess in Britain that is what the Queen is for. She can dissolve parliament etc.

[Charlie]

As a person with a similar to him, I doubt he would feel disgraced, as I wouldn't. Unless disgraced is not describing a feeling..?

 

 

Why would he deserve it? Some of us want to live our lives as fullt as possible, why is that so bad? I have intense fear of death, hence I'm going into a battlefield to kill or be killed (probably both).

 

P1) The Government managed to make people feel disgraced in both World Wars when they introduced conscription by having great posters in public places. My personal 'favourite' is the little boy asking his father "So what did you do in the Great War, Dad?" and the father looking really ashamed.

 

P2) Well everyone else is out risking their lives to fight for the freedom of their country, he would just be sitting at home letting other people fight for his freedom.

 

 

And I think something a lot of people are forgetting is that National Service does not equal Conscription. Conscription is getting called up to the army in times of need and you actually go to war. National Service was a 2 year term in which you go to basically a military school to be given the training which conscripts didn't have time to get. National Service would actually benefit to you if conscription ever was introduced again.

[Ramar]

 

F**K YEAH!!

[chairdriver]

"So what did you do in the Great War, Dad?"

 

Wouldn't a pacifist reply like this: "I didn't include myself in the pointless massacre of 12 million people, and I'm really proud of that."

 

I'm not proud that my dad has fought in Kosovo and Iraq, and maybe in the future in Afghanistan. It hardly means he's a noble person. It's just a result of the fact that he didn't do well enough at school to get any other well-paying job.

[Paj!]

P1) The Government managed to make people feel disgraced in both World Wars when they introduced conscription by having great posters in public places. My personal 'favourite' is the little boy asking his father "So what did you do in the Great War, Dad?" and the father looking really ashamed.

 

P2) Well everyone else is out risking their lives to fight for the freedom of their country, he would just be sitting at home letting other people fight for his freedom.

Wouldn't a pacifist reply like this: "I didn't include myself in the pointless massacre of 12 million people, and I'm really proud of that."

 

Mm-hmm.

 

This isn't WWI. We've seen almost 100 years of change since then! The 40's really showed what war was to the UK, then periods of change like the 60's...

 

I frankly couldn't give less of a shit If I saw a poster like that.

 

As if one person would make a difference anyway. ["AGAH! BUT IF YOU SAY THAT, NO ONE WILL GO!>!!>!NO ARMY NO WIN"]

 

----

 

And I think something a lot of people are forgetting is that National Service does not equal Conscription. Conscription is getting called up to the army in times of need and you actually go to war. National Service was a 2 year term in which you go to basically a military school to be given the training which conscripts didn't have time to get. National Service would actually benefit to you if conscription ever was introduced again.

 

I wasn't benefitted in any way whatsoever by my year of CCF. And somehow I doubt actual National Service would be some revelation to me. I never wish to be associated with any army, personally.

 

I proudly own a white poppy that I'll wear on November 11th.