+Safer under labour!! another flying pig

[American FLEET FAN No1]

No Weapons of mass destruction were found,but everyone knows he HAD chemical weapons which he had used in the North of the country. He had Missiles that he launched on Israel in the first Gulf War,and there was very strong evidence that Saddam was developing Nuclear weapons. It doesn't take much working out that when he aquired a reliable Missile with a warhead it would not only have been launched at Israel, but Iran as well. He ruled by fear on the premise that the rest of the world was too scared to stop him. Saddam if he hadn't have been stopped could well have been responsible for starting the 3rd world war.

Before anyone starts with,"This should have been left to the UN!",it is now becoming known that France, Germany and Russia had been ignoring the "Oil for Food" agreement, and deals for anything Saddam wanted was being brokered by The Secretary Generals own Son!

[pabird]

There has been not a single scrap of evidence to support what Bush-Bliar and now your good self are claiming

It simply is not possible for any country to make-hold-move atomic/radio active materials without the security forces of the west knowing

The spy in the sky abilities are such they can read car number plates let alone spot weapons of mass destruction being moved-made-practised on etc etc

The world is now less safe than before the invasion

[Mark (Flag) Braintree]

Quote:

The world is now less safe than before the invasion

I agree completely <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif" alt="" />

[American FLEET FAN No1]

Wear your rose coloured glasses all you want.....the world has never been safe...and never will.............so get used to it!

[American FLEET FAN No1]

Security is only as good as the people operating it.....If the Americans were as good as they SAY they are........How come they let all the explosives be taken from a so called SECURE compound?........

From the UN's own inspectors

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the chief of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency has warned.

 

Satellite imagery shows entire buildings that once housed high-precision equipment that could be used to make nuclear bombs have been dismantled, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter to the Security Council.

 

In the letter, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said that though some radioactive equipment taken from Iraq after the war began has shown up in other countries, none of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials that is missing has been found.

[Big J R]

Went to see Jim Davidson at Dorking Halls last night with some of the family.

 

If you think he's 'Right-Wing' when you see him on TV or on one of his video's, then go and see him live ! What he says in jest has a distinct ring of truth to it !

 

Jim Davidson for P.M., I say !!

 

..... AND, I got a personally signed copy of his book !

[MHL]

Saddam clearly used bio weapons against Iran and the Marsh Arabs and Kurds. Had he used them against Israel then their devastating response would have caused World War 3. Credit to the West for keeping Israel on a leash when he used the decrepit Scuds. Without intelligence on the ground we would never have known the capabilities of Saddam. Naive to suggest that the wonderous technology (which couldn't tell the difference between British armoured vehicles and Iraqi armoured vehicles) could detail Saddams weapon capabilities.

 

I'm not supporting Bush or Blair but lets take a look at the bigger picture.

[MHL]

Our safety becomes compromised when people find it acceptable to carry out "suicide" attacks, be it on the Twin Towers or out on the streets.

 

Our safety becomes compromised when people find public executions acceptable as a way of defiance.

 

Our safety becomes compromised when people take the side of the "victim" against British Soldiers!

[Mark (Flag) Braintree]

Don't agree. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[Badger]

Are you saying that suicide attacks don't affect people's security at all?

 

I can see where you're coming from with MHL's 2nd and 3rd points, but I don't understand how you can disagree with his 1st one. Security experts the world over agree that suicide attacks are amongst the hardest to defend against.

[Mark (Flag) Braintree]

I just don't see why we and the yanks have to get involved, I won't say anymore than that as FFno1usa, goes on about Germany and how we would all be speaking German, completely different altogether.

 

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

[The Invisible Man]

We should also consider why these idiots want to perpertrate suicide attacks and not allow the whoe thing to escalate in a grotesque global tit for tat.

[Badger]

Fair enough Mark, didn't get that from your original post.

 

I agree about the WWII analogy. It isn't the same situation, so no paralells should be drawn. However, most people have a vague idea about what happened in WWII, so it makes it easy to illustrate your point. I try not to do itmyself,but sometimes you can't think of another way to put your point across.

[vienna1964]

Hmmm ! What an odd place to discover such a politicised thread !

 

I am not going to get involved with the political rantings here, save to say that I am always on the side of "true" democracy and freedom of speech/thought - whether that exists outside the minds of ideallists or otherwise.

 

I think that we all have to accept that man is an imperfect creature whatever his politics, culture &/or religious views and has been programmed by nature and evolution to optimise the chances of furthering his own genetic inheritance to the exclusion of any others'.

 

This is manifest in the strength of one's own survival instincts, followed by the urge to protect one's own family/offspring from peril and developed cooperatively to the protection of one's own clan, culture and ultimately race.

 

I'm not here to justify the rights and wrongs we perceive here and now about such "pre-programmed" behaviours, nor the emergent tendency from these to mistrust, despise and discredit those from other clans, cultures and races ~ I am just pointing out that this is the way that we are made - pure and simple.

 

There are those in the world who are sufficiently intellectually enlightened to be able to recognise these basal traits within themselves and within mankind in general, although, sadly they are insufficient in number and/or influence to greatly change matters as they stand.

 

Not that matters would greatly improve, were all mankind in possession of this knowledge - as nature always tends to win out over nurture in the end !

 

Essentially, what I am saying is that whenever there is a "power vacuum", there will always be supposedly pure ideallists who will grasp for the mantle of governance - and by doing so, fall into the trap represented by the common saying "power corrupts" ~ power, by definition is something which is hard won and harder to protect and the measures necessary to achieve such power and keep it render even the most sincere ideallist either a hypocrite or a deposed leader !

 

Mankind continues to fail to come to grips with this concept as a whole - our genetic programming is yet stronger than our intellectual understanding of existence. It is only once all mankind understands how to subsume his evolutionary past that all the internecine power-struggles would cease. It will take the comprehensive dismantling of all cultural divides, all differing religious perceptions and perhaps even the achievement of one single "perfectly melded" human genotype before we are in a position to achieve this worthy goal... in other words, "when hell freezes over" would likely pass in a blink of any eye whilst we await this much vaunted state of global enlightenment to occur.

 

Nevertheless, the noble endeavour is not to fruitlessly comment upon the woes caused by mankinds inherently destructive nature... it is to try to impart to as many folks as possible that they should seek to understand and intellectuallise their genetic inheritence and thereby alter the way that the whole world deals with the concept of "alienisation".

 

However, it must be questioned that even were we to succeed in this bold undertaking, would we still be "human" or would we have become somnething altogether different ? Would we, by denying natures own evolutionary determinant - the survival of the fittest - have set ourselves up for some cataclysmic extinction, by allowing the "weaker genes" equal billing with those that nature would have itself promulgated ?

 

We, in the "civilised world" are already beginning to reap the harvest of protecting the weaker gene-pools - a process which would eventually lead to a global genetic-health compromise which might lead to the extinction of those carrying such "interventionist" genes.

 

Be unsure that maybe those who are not the "meek" shall inherit the earth... in the long term !

 

I am quite convinced that nature, as always - will have the last laugh !

 

I trust that this philosophical "ramble" will lead to much further debate !!!

[Badger]

So basically, you're saying 'Things will get a lot worse before they get any better. They might not ever get any better actually.'

[vienna1964]

Maybe !

 

Guess that the prognosis for us is "kill or be killed" when push comes to shove ~ as nature intended all along !

 

It is the ultimate arrogance to beleive that we might outwit nature, once and for all - I firmly beleive that before long we will experience some vast pandemic which will effectively put us back to "step 1" - if you like - and the emergence of such things as AIDS and bird-flu are just the vanguard to "the really big one".

 

I think that what I am saying is that what we "civilised folks" sneer at in terms of "primitive" wars and rivalries within less developed lands is pretty much what nature likes - and we are fooling ourselves to think that evolution will let us "get away" with our supposed intellectual vanities that we are "better than that" !!!

 

Or am I just a grim [****!!****] with too much time on my hands after managing to break my neck ?

 

lol

[The Invisible Man]

I won't bore you with details but natural selection doesn't work exactly like that, the "survival of the fittest" tag is generally misunderstood. It means fitness for the given environment, not the biggest and baddest.

 

The strategy that humans developed to enable them to adapt to the natural environment is culture. There is nothing arrogant about this, it is in fact itself another aspect of "nature."

 

I doubt if any biological anthropologist would agree that war is necassarily inevitable or a consequence of "nature".

[vienna1964]

Which is the exact sense in which the phrase is used - as we progressively dilute the gene-pool with "less fit" genes,then there become more and more points at which an opportunistic virus can make inroads into the general populace.

Once such an organism has a foot-hold, it is much more likely that a fortuitious mutation will then put the greater number at risk.

 

As regards culture... I agree that there is not necessarily anything arrogant about culture per se. It is the point whereby we begin to beleive that we can cure any ill which is where the arrogance starts. We are certainly not far from reaching this point.

 

Perhaps the biological anthropologists of your knowledge should communicate with behavioural psychologists a little more.

Without necessarily resulting in "war" - there is certainly evidence of "conflict" as a natural solution to super-saturation in terms of population density.

I cannot remember the particular researchers for sure - the names Aaronson & Hull seem to float to the surface here - but numerous highly respected experiments in social psychology in the 1970's lead to the firm conclusion that many of the "conflict" ills of modern society will naturally develop as a simple process of over-population.

The behaviours apparent within over-populated rat societies (who closely mirror simple human societies) such as inappropriately sexualised behaviours, "gang warfare", infanticide, drug abuse and random acts of killing - all lead to the inescapable conclusion that violent behaviours naturally lead from this kind of population-stress.

The "gang warfare" aspect being, perhaps the most appropriate example in respect of this current discussion thread.

[Barry Scott]

it's all very nice to trot out the theory, but the simple fact remains that in the end we'll all be dead, be it from a heart attack or an extremist with twenty pounds of explosives strapped to their bodies. Merry Christmas everyone!

[Badger]

Not if they develop cloning first. Or stop ageing. Or something.