We're all gonna die in pointless war

[danv]

US President George W Bush said the alleged plot was a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom."

From this article on the latest foiled terrorist attacks in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4780815.stm

I don't consider myself hugely knowledgable on world affairs outside of paying close attention to the abc news and current affairs and the occasional commentary/opinion article in The Age (ie. basically informed, but not to any real depth or with real background and detail) but does this shit seem to just be getting alot worse and alot more serious as time goes on? What does the next 5 to 10 years hold? Should I be hoarding supplies and building an atomic bomb shelter on our country property?

Iraq is on the verge of civil war and going down hill
Israel might actually get rid of hezbollah itself if it continues to bomb the shit out of lebannon, but it'll leave a whole nation with a significant chunk of it simply eliminated (this isn't some rogue group, they have two fucking seats in the parliament for shits sake), their blood boiling over and a crystalized 'hate and destroy israel' sentiment
As technology progresses, it only becomes easier to wield more power for less money and effort. It becomes easier and cheaper to develop all sorts of weaponry.

People don't seem to realise how stupid things are getting and how stupid they are acting.

Isn't the world as it is thinking and acting today, with the perspective it has on things, the kind of world that let's itself get into a world war?

Yo George, stop this shit!

I dunno if im just being pessimistic and gloomy, but either way:
The primary point of this thread is to ask the question, especially of all the knowledgeable and intelligent types with good perspectives, who for some reason frequent this place (not looking at one man in particular), what do you think the next 5 - 10 years hold?

 

[scblack]

World War 1 was nearly 100 years ago. Life went on.

World War 2 was much worse about 60 years ago. Life went on.

Many smaller wars have happened since. Life goes on.


This is not as bad as you think. The "War on Terror" has really been more of a tool used by Bush to gain more control in his own country, and to some degree over other countries also. Done it very poorly too (as is the American way....see Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Many more people die in car crashes every year. Make the best of your life as it stands. Worrying about it does not help.

 

[Oddjob]

World War 1 was nearly 100 years ago. Life went on.

World War 2 was much worse about 60 years ago. Life went on.

Many smaller wars have happened since. Life goes on.


This is not as bad as you think. The "War on Terror" has really been more of a tool used by Bush to gain more control in his own country, and to some degree over other countries also. Done it very poorly too (as is the American way....see Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Many more people die in car crashes every year. Make the best of your life as it stands. Worrying about it does not help.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

More chance of getting hit by a bus or taken by a shark than of actually getting killed in a terrorist attack.

Compared to conscription in world war 1 and having to face the trenches of the Somme and I'll take the muslim idealogues any day.

In the next 5-10 years I think the world will grow weary of the war on terror and terrorism will lull just like it did at the turn of the century with the anarchists, in the 30s with the communists, the 50s post colonialists, the 70s with the baader - meinhoff, IRA and the red brigades etc etc.

What really worries me is nuclear proliferation. All this talk of the NPT etc is rubbish it didn't stop Isreal, Pakistan and India and I'm not confident that it will stop Iran or North Korea. The permanent members of the security council really should take a no tolerance attitude.

 

[gravelclimber]

At least fuel prices are bringing about a stoppage of the Israel/Lebanon war and maybe even a peaceful solution. Is there any problem high fuel prices can't solve?

Prohibitively High Rocket-Fuel Prices Bring Mideast Crisis To Standstill

August 7, 2006 | Issue 42•32

BEIRUT, LEBANON—As the cost of rocket fuel soared to $630 per gallon Monday, Middle Easterners who depend on the non-renewable propellant to power 10-kilogram rockets have been forced to severely restrict their daily bombing routines, bringing this latest round of fighting to an unexpected halt.

Frustrated Hezbollah fighters face astronomical rocket-fuel prices at the pump.

"The way things are going, I won’t have any money left over for other necessities, such as anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, and machine guns," said Hezbollah guerrilla Mahmoud Hamoui, who is just one of hundreds of Islamic militants compelled to scale back their killing until rocket-fuel prices return to their pre-2006 levels.

Regions in southern Lebanon and northern Israel, once bursting with the sounds of exploding rockets and air attacks, now lay eerily silent. Even the Gaza Strip, another scene of turmoil, is enduring an unsettling calm.

Since the start of this year, the average Palestinian and Lebanese militant’s rocket-fuel consumption has surged from three gallons to 22 gallons per week—second only to Cape Canaveral, FL in propellant consumption.

Experts have warned for months that factors including Hezbollah’s insatiable demand for larger rockets, the increased dependence on gas-guzzling car bombs, and the war in the Middle East would all drive up demand for rocket fuel while putting a severe strain on its supply. However, most ignored the threat, finding it difficult to change their way of life.

"I admit I had grown accustomed to waking up every morning, driving my multiple-rocket-launcher to the launching site, and firing one unguided Katyusha rocket after another, even when it wasn’t absolutely necessary," Lebanese militia member Omar Cheaib said. "But at these prices, I can’t even afford short-range launches over the border. I don’t know what to do with myself."

Added Cheaib: "I only hope our leaders do something soon to get life back to normal."

The shortage has also resulted in long lines at military fuel dumps, frustrating citizens trying to purchase as much rocket fuel as they can before prices climb even higher. At a Hezbollah installation outside Sidon, dozens of guerrillas slowly rolled Katyusha rockets in the direction of a holding tank containing the precious propellant.

"I waited for two hours to fill up my Qassam-2 rocket yesterday, and I could only afford half a tank," said Hezbollah militant Amin Hammoud, who admitted to siphoning fuel from other rockets in his neighborhood. "Do you know how fast a Qassam-2 burns through half a tank of rocket fuel? Even if I launched it from An Naqurah, it still wouldn’t make the trip to Nahariyya."

"It’s sad, but the only thing that’s blowing up right now is prices," Hammoud added.

The increase in fuel costs has even prompted the much more powerful Israeli military to suspend wider-scale rocket attacks on public places and completely cut out orphanage bombings, relying instead on targeted precision attacks that kill only seven or eight people at a time.

Experts said that had Mideast citizens made a more conscious effort to reduce their daily bombings by the recommended 15 percent last year, they would still be able to affordably wage war today.

"A helpful list of rocket-fuel-conservation tips was issued by the Lebanese government in early June, but it was virtually ignored," Beirut Arab University environmental studies Professor Farid Issa said. "It suggested taking public transportation to the border to launch missiles, or simply gunning down Israelis with AK-47s. Instead, Hezbollah members chose to fire rockets from the convenience of their own backyards, as if rocket fuel grew on trees."

The unexpected jump in prices has many Islamic militants asking themselves for the first time whether the price they pay for rocket fuel is worth the price further paid by a handful of Zionists.

"The possibility that the world may run out of rocket fuel has left us radicals wondering if our children, or our children’s children, will enjoy the same level of militancy," said Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who feared that if the crisis continues, it could eventually spell the restoration of Middle Eastern infrastructure and prosperity, renewed relations with neighboring countries, and a "worst-case-scenario peace gridlock."

"Now the question becomes: What can we do to prevent this from ever happening?" Nasrallah said. "None of us want to live in a world in which we have to give up driving Israel into the sea, but we must face reality."

According to reports, Hezbollah is considering investing in an experimental new technology, still in its theoretical stages, that uses the clean-burning, inexpensive, yet highly combustible element hydrogen.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51351

Back on topic - look on the slightly brighter side - as bad as things could get, they're not even going to approach what most Africans have to go through every day. We are still very, very lucky.

 

[gravelclimber]

drop a nuetron bomb

Neutron bombs kill living organisms and leave infrastructure intact. They have massive radioactive fall out. Your idea is not a very good one.

 

[Oddjob]

Neutron bombs kill living organisms and leave infrastructure intact. They have massive radioactive fall out. Your idea is not a very good one.

Incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuetron_bomb. Infrastructure is destroyed within area of effect wich is less than 700m radius. The radiation is actually very shortlived. My point is that it would be a very precise and effective way of enforcing non proliferation. Anyway I've edited my post for the sake of political correctness.

 

[scblack]

What really worries me is nuclear proliferation.

Off topic, but did you know, for America's nuclear power plants, HALF of the nuclear material required to power them has been provided by de-commissioned nuclear weapons.

All this talk of the NPT etc is rubbish it didn't stop Isreal, Pakistan and India and I'm not confident that it will stop Iran or North Korea. The permanent members of the security council really should take a no tolerance attitude.

Why so, Oddjob? Why should USA, France etc have a monopoly on nuclear technology, just because they developed the technology 40-60 years ago? They do not have a patent of sorts on the technology, so why should newly developed nations not be allowed to generate the technology?

Rogue states like North Korea, Iran I will exclude as they do not have a decent healthy attitude to this topic, or certainly not to neighbours, and could be TERRIBLY dangerous. I see that as very real problem if some countries were to develop the technology.

I have no real stance on this topic, Oddjob but do not really see, intellectually, why others should not be able to develop the technology. As long as their political stature is strong enough to manage it properly.

Otherwise you are simply managing something of an artificial "status quo" of power/technology.

 

[Oddjob]

Off topic, but did you know, for America's nuclear power plants, HALF of the nuclear material required to power them has been provided by de-commissioned nuclear weapons.


Why so, Oddjob? Why should USA, France etc have a monopoly on nuclear technology, just because they developed the technology 40-60 years ago? They do not have a patent of sorts on the technology, so why should newly developed nations not be allowed to generate the technology?

Rogue states like North Korea, Iran I will exclude as they do not have a decent healthy attitude to this topic, or certainly not to neighbours, and could be TERRIBLY dangerous. I see that as very real problem if some countries were to develop the technology.

I have no real stance on this topic, Oddjob but do not really see, intellectually, why others should not be able to develop the technology. As long as their political stature is strong enough to manage it properly.

Otherwise you are simply managing something of an artificial "status quo" of power/technology.

No I didn't but I'm not surprised. America and Russia between them had enough nukes to scorch every square centimeter of the earth a few thousand times. Since the end of the cold war this has decreased to a few hundred times.

The reason why is simple. USA, Russia, Britain, France and China is already too many countries with too many nukes. Adding Isreal, Taiwan, India, Pakistan and whoever elso to the mix is worse. 1 nuclear weapon is too many in my opinion, but the reality is that there are some countries with nukes and I would encourage them to treat it like an exclusive club and make it as small as possible, its not the who its the how many.

Nuclear technology for power on the other hand is a completely different story.

 

[gravelclimber]

Incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuetron_bomb. Infrastructure is destroyed within area of effect wich is less than 700m radius. The radiation is actually very shortlived.

Yeah, OT and I know you've edited but a neutron bomb produces half the residual radiation of a standard nuclear bomb (though the half-life is relatively short). While the blast is confined (a few hundred meters), the radiation spreads over a 10 km radius. Any survivors of the blast would soon find their bodies filled with elements such as strontium, ensuring that they eventually die of radiation poisoning. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/395689.stm).

 

[Oddjob]

Yeah, OT and I know you've edited but a neutron bomb produces half the residual radiation of a standard nuclear bomb (though the half-life is relatively short). While the blast is confined (a few hundred meters), the radiation spreads over a 10 km radius. Any survivors of the blast would soon find their bodies filled with elements such as strontium, ensuring that they eventually die of radiation poisoning. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/395689.stm).

The half life is very short for H bombs as they rely on fussion rather than fission for their power.

Only with a high altitude air burst will the radiation spread that far and much of it will be in the elctromagnetic spectrum in a similar way to a EMP. A ground level burst will only have an effective radius of up to about 2000 meters even with the largest nuetron bombs (10kt). This is due to the higher air pressure as well as the higher humidity at ground level thus more molecules for the Nuetrons to ionise.

Its all moot anyway because no one would ever do it except maybe isreal if they were pushed too far. There would never be agreement from the current nuclear powers on who should do it using what method etc.

I just wish the UN security council took its position more seriously.

 

[RCOH]

I just wish the UN security council took its position more seriously.

You can't spell redundant without the UN.

 

[danv]

World War 1 was nearly 100 years ago. Life went on.

World War 2 was much worse about 60 years ago. Life went on.

Many smaller wars have happened since. Life goes on.


This is not as bad as you think. The "War on Terror" has really been more of a tool used by Bush to gain more control in his own country, and to some degree over other countries also. Done it very poorly too (as is the American way....see Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq).

Many more people die in car crashes every year. Make the best of your life as it stands. Worrying about it does not help.

Yeah I guess I wrote this thread in the middle of the night when I was a bit out of it. I'm by no means fearful or worried, apart from being pointless, i'm not sure how warranted it is anyway.

But i'm just interested in what people think will be happening in the middle east over the next decade, and where the war on terror and the islamic fundamentalist terrorism it's meant to be fighting will actually end up in the longer term.

I think america will probably pull out of Iraq in the next few years and just leave the place in a complete mess, and also that terrorist attacks in the league of what was just foiled london will become more common. I mean it's just so easy to wipe out a large amount of people, I don't understand why haven't seen more attacks than we actually have.

And the terrorists and their interpretation of islam seem to be just attracting more and more people who feel alienated from western societies in particular, societies that seems to be heading in a very particular direction which has all sorts of problems.

 

[wtr]

You can't spell redundant without the UN.

Haha, and you certainly can't spell hotel without ho.

Blah, living in paranoid is like a life half lived. If we were meant to die somehow, and we will, pending on the circumstances(e.g traffic or KFC). Even still, we don't see the numbers of daily public transport commuters on the decline, but quite the opposite as being driven by higher fuel prices.

Speaking of which, if you could monopolize a technology or resource, wouldn't you hold onto to it tight? I know I would. Money isn't everything, but it practically runs everything. Might even see more inflations in the coming years because of that.

 

[lopes]

US President George W Bush said the alleged plot was a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom."

From this article on the latest foiled terrorist attacks in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4780815.stm

I don't consider myself hugely knowledgable on world affairs outside of paying close attention to the abc news and current affairs and the occasional commentary/opinion article in The Age (ie. basically informed, but not to any real depth or with real background and detail) but does this shit seem to just be getting alot worse and alot more serious as time goes on? What does the next 5 to 10 years hold? Should I be hoarding supplies and building an atomic bomb shelter on our country property?

Iraq is on the verge of civil war and going down hill
Israel might actually get rid of hezbollah itself if it continues to bomb the shit out of lebannon, but it'll leave a whole nation with a significant chunk of it simply eliminated (this isn't some rogue group, they have two fucking seats in the parliament for shits sake), their blood boiling over and a crystalized 'hate and destroy israel' sentiment
As technology progresses, it only becomes easier to wield more power for less money and effort. It becomes easier and cheaper to develop all sorts of weaponry.

People don't seem to realise how stupid things are getting and how stupid they are acting.

Isn't the world as it is thinking and acting today, with the perspective it has on things, the kind of world that let's itself get into a world war?

Yo George, stop this shit!

I dunno if im just being pessimistic and gloomy, but either way:
The primary point of this thread is to ask the question, especially of all the knowledgeable and intelligent types with good perspectives, who for some reason frequent this place (not looking at one man in particular), what do you think the next 5 - 10 years hold?

Great topic - I think you've got things sussed out pretty well.

Unfortunately, the majority of people seem to be sucked in by the government line.
Most are too busy making money, or watching big brother & CSI to make our governments acountable for their actions.
The 'she'll be right' attitute of a lot of people is also part of the problem, and it allows our governments to get away with it.

How is the 'war on terrorism' going to be won?

It will only get worse until those in power finally fess up that the reason they want to get us is not because of 'who we are' but really because of 'what we do'.

We fool ourselves into thinking they hate us because of our freedoms - it's not that simple. These are home grown terrorists.

I can put up with the hassle of increased security because it's definitely necessary, but anyone who thinks we can win the 'war' by continuing with the same policies is going to be in for a big shock when the current crop of kids in Lebanon grow up.

 

[danv]

Great topic - I think you've got things sussed out pretty well.

Unfortunately, the majority of people seem to be sucked in by the government line.
Most are too busy making money, or watching big brother & CSI to make our governments acountable for their actions.
The 'she'll be right' attitute of a lot of people is also part of the problem, and it allows our governments to get away with it.

How is the 'war on terrorism' going to be won?

It will only get worse until those in power finally fess up that the reason they want to get us is not because of 'who we are' but really because of 'what we do'.

Yeah I think complacency and apathy is a serious issue in Australia. We've always been so far removed from any serious world affairs, virtually nothing international has really affected us on the ground at all. So every one just seems to just have this part of them that says that they can just turn off the news and it will go away. It never quite seems real. But I think that idea is dissapearing very slowly as society and the world becomes more globalised, global communication, and ultimately people actually having more awareness of what is happening outside of their own lives and communities. The difference between the anarchy of some backwater in Iraq and a safe as houses leaft suburb in an Australian capital city is a 20 hour plane ride.

As for how the 'war on terrorism' is going to be won, I don't think it ever can be. I mean how can you win a war when you have such and ambiguos definition of who your enemy is. It's just a convenient way of initiating a situation to shake things up, fight, gain and lose influence and play politics for a whole variety of different, and really fairly sinister and damaging, agendas. Defending "those of us who love freedom" Give me a fucking break.

 

[danv]

Blah, living in paranoid is like a life half lived. If we were meant to die somehow, and we will, pending on the circumstances(e.g traffic or KFC). Even still, we don't see the numbers of daily public transport commuters on the decline, but quite the opposite as being driven by higher fuel prices.

Yeah I completely agree. Paranoia and fear generally serve no real useful purpose whatsoever. They certainly can't change anything, and usually only make it worse. It is literally pointless to live in fear. If you're worried about something dangerous, or the risk of something bad happening, you assess the situation as smartly as you can, make your decisions, and then let go of that which you have no control over.

 

[johnny]

If survival is a stressor for you, best you stick to worrying about war. Thinking about the environment will make you suicidal.

 

[danv]

If survival is a stressor for you, best you stick to worrying about war. Thinking about the environment will make you suicidal.

Hooray for the future!

 

[danv]

Relevant article in today's age. I don't how on the ball this guy is exactly, but he has some valid points. The situation with Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq I did not know about.

What really gets me is just how horrible the USA's foreign policy has always been. Completely destructive, and worsening any problem it has got involved in.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1155407666168.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Beware the new guns of August

Richard Holbrooke
August 14, 2006

There is conflict across the world. The United States has closed its eyes to the problems.

TWO full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there. Unless the UN ceasefire agreement can be implemented quickly, Syria could easily get pulled into renewed war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organisation. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's war in Afghanistan is not going well. India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship with Islamic resistance.

The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who last week held the largest anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration in the world in the very heart of Baghdad, even as 6000 additional US troops were rushing into the city to "prevent" a civil war that has already begun.

This combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only nuclear superpower confrontation. The Cuba crisis, although immensely dangerous, was comparatively simple: it came down to two leaders and no war. In 13 days of brilliant diplomacy, John F. Kennedy induced Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba.

Kennedy was deeply influenced by Barbara Tuchman's classic, The Guns of August, which recounted how a seemingly isolated event 92 summers ago — an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb terrorist — set off a chain reaction that led in just a few weeks to World War I. There are vast differences between that August and this one. But Tuchman ended her book with a sentence that resonates in this time of crisis: "The nations were caught in a trap, a trap made during the first thirty days out of battles that failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit."

Preventing just such a trap must be the highest priority of American policy. Unfortunately, there is little public sign that the President and his top advisers recognise how close we are to a chain reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions.

Under the universally accepted doctrine of self-defence, which is embodied in Article 51 of the UN Charter, there is no question that Israel has a legitimate right to take action against a group that has sworn to destroy it and had hidden 13,000 missiles in southern Lebanon. In these circumstances, American support for Israel is essential, as it has been since the time of Truman; if Washington abandoned Jerusalem, the very existence of the Jewish state could be jeopardised., and the world crisis whose early phase we are now in would quickly get far worse. The United States must continue to make clear that it is ready to come to Israel's defence, both diplomatically and, as necessary, with military equipment.

But the US must also understand, and deal with, the wider consequences of its own actions and public statements, which have caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in much of the world and are provoking dangerous new anti-American coalitions and encouraging a new generation of terrorists. American disengagement from active Middle East diplomacy since 2001 has led to greater violence and a decline in US influence. Others have been eager to fill the vacuum. (Note the sudden emergence of France as a key player in the current burst of diplomacy.)

American policy has had the unintended, but entirely predictable, effect of pushing America's enemies closer together. Throughout the region, Sunnis and Shiites have put aside their hatred of each other just long enough to join in shaking their fists — or doing worse — at the United States and Israel. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, our coalition troops are coming under attack by both sides — Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. If this continues, the US presence in Baghdad has no future.

President Bush owes it to his nation, and especially the troops who risk their lives every day, to re-examine his policies. For starters, he should redeploy some US troops into northern Iraq to serve as a buffer between the increasingly agitated Turks and the restive, independence-minded Kurds. Given the new situation, such a redeployment and a phased drawdown elsewhere is fully justified. At the same time, the US should send more troops to Afghanistan.

On the diplomatic front, the United States cannot abandon the field to other nations (not even France) or the United Nations. Every secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright negotiated with Syria, including those Republican icons George Shultz and James Baker. Why won't this Administration follow suit? This would clearly be in Israel's interest.

Talks with Iran would be more difficult. Why has the world's leading nation stood aside and allowed the international dialogue with Tehran to be conducted by Europeans, the Chinese and the UN? And why has that dialogue been restricted to the nuclear issue — vitally important, to be sure, but not as urgent at this moment as Iran's sponsorship and arming of Hezbollah and its support of actions against US forces in Iraq?

Containing the violence must be Washington's first priority. Finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel must follow. Then must come the unwinding of America's disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil. All of this will take sustained high-level diplomacy — precisely what the US Administration has avoided. Washington has, or at least used to have, leverage over the more moderate Arab states; it should use it again, in consultation with and on behalf of Israel.

And we must be ready for unexpected problems that will test the US; they could come in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan or even Somalia — but they will come. Without a new, comprehensive strategy based the most urgent national security needs — as opposed to a muddled version of Wilsonianism — this crisis is almost certain to worsen and spread.

Richard Holbrooke is a former US ambassador to the United Nations.

 

[Techno Destructo]

Please God, protect me from your followers...