Messages

My words are taken somewhat out of context this way. I, as an Israeli person feel safer because Iraq posed a real military threat to my state, and the situation isn't the same with Britain. I am not sure I would have felt safer as a Brit.

Besides, there will always be a report in the media about how the goverment ignored intelligence warnings, no matter what the government does. It's a hot story. Had the UK not joined the US, newspapers would write on how this or that intelligence agency said that not attacking Iraq is raising the risk of terrorism.  

I think it's that Chinese fella.

[my]

DG, bodyguards don't always help, but I'm quite sure a pair of bodyguards could stop one man with a knife. Again, why take an unnecessary risk and travel without one?

If that's the case, then I will hire some bodyguards for myself tomorrow.

You never know when someone will come stab me while I'm out to get the newspaper, or going to buy some milk at the shops.

In fact, Uni has been pretty dangerous of late, what with all those other students around, so I'll take my bodyguards with me too.

*giggle*  

* Barcik puts a contract on DG's life.

Seriously now, I believe that the chances of that happening are a little higher when you're a famous politician.


SSH, I would like to live in such a utopian society just the same, but this is unrealistic, at least not right now (By the way, I know about Jodi Jones because I was in Scotland at the time of her murder. Did they find the murderer?).

The principal of being among fellow countrymen is nice, but in my eyes, the risk is not worth it. However, it has nothing to do with the lack of security here. I believe that person, in any country, as a potential target should be never caught off-guard.

After each terrorist attack here, the newspapers do an article called "the stories of the victims". This is much like this post of yours, Dave. For example, one of the victims of the last terrorist attack was to be married later that day.
Reading these articles, as well as yours, makes one realize how quickly a person, or at least part of him can change.



Victims of the WTC attacks - Rest in Peace

SSH, you are taking things way off-topic. What does basic security have to do with our lovely little local conflict you are so gently implying to? All I said is that a politician doesn't need to enter a store alone as if he is just an average person. Even if there is little crime in Sweden, why take the risk?

DG, bodyguards don't always help, but I'm quite sure a pair of bodyguards could stop one man with a knife. Again, why take an unnecessary risk and travel without one?

I'll ignore the not-so-gentle jab, and say that this is totally irrelevant. This case proves that there can always be an extremist willing to take matters into his own hands. Furthermore, a (former?) Swedish Prime-Minister was murdered in 1986. They have to learn from mistakes.

Andail, how come your politicians go shopping alone without any security?

OF course, I would be too, but still, it's not right to do something like that.

I find it quite annoying that this magazines never bother to ask the creators of the game whether they want their games disturbed.

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

The problem with the UN, however nice the idea is, is that it will always be torn by the conflict of interests between the main powers, thus making it a pretty useless organization with only symbolic meaning. It is useless to rely on the UN, as an organization. The US isn't crawling back to the UN, but to France, Germany and Russia.
Furthermore, UN forces, especially under an UN flag cannot help. They will be static, too scared to leave because of the fear of civil war, and too actually wussy and anti-American in policy to take action. The situation will stay much as it is today, and it will be strecthed over a very long period.

You are rubber, I am glue.

[I]

2. USA failed; there is no safety in Iraq now, no democracy, no bloody nothing, just a big vast desert of misery and abuse...they're doing the right thing to ask UN for help, if it's not too late

I'd like to point out that comment. Surprisingly to some of you, I agree. I don't think the failure is a absolute as Andail makes it seem (I do feel safer), but it's still a total mess.
However, I am pretty sure me and Andail will disagree on the reasons the war failed - while he will say that the the whole war was started without proper causes, I will say the war was right, but the US handled things badly (and it still does).
But that's life...

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

Pumaman, I think we might need some more zoom spaces. The northwest part of america, and the east coast of austrialia are impossible to read

Hehe yes, I feared this might happen.

Ok, there are now zoom areas for the UK, Finland, West Coast USA and East Coast USA. More can be added if too many flags appear somewhere else.

How about a zoom for Israel? It's too small to place several flags.  

*cough*Greece*cough*

And yet, the budget the Ministry of Defense allocated to the Iraqi threat was second only to the one within our borders. In fact, the whole money flaw of the army is about to go through an overhawl because of the fall of Saddam.

Although there were no real signs to imply on a sudden massive attack, Israel is not a state that can take such risks. Syria has, as a state done nothing bad recently, and yet they still pose a potent and serious threat.

Do the attempts of Iran to acquite nuclear power necesserily mean that they will launch a rocket on Tel-Aviv the first change they get? Most likely not, but they are another enemy state which cannot be ignored.

With a lack of a peace treaty (not that I trust those) with many of the countries that surround us, they are all enemies and potential threats. The fall of one of them makes me feel safer.

[Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore]

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?

I'd like to know that too. The most likely answer is that they want to get rid of the shit they have on their hands and leave all the fun of clearing it to the UN. But there is no way the UN can actually do it, even if they agree.

I tend to think Israel is in a more percarious position now. Saddam might have liked to rant on about Israel every so often to get a bit of public support, but there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state for 3 decades. The attacks in 1991 were a political play after all, and one that failed. Then again, '73 was more a political manouever than a serious military campaign (one which paid off at camp David) and it now appears that the posturing in '67 was bluffing which backfired badly.
Instead, the fundamentalism that was always brutally opressed under the old rejime is flourishing in the new Iraq. Ironically that which caused 911 is the main beneficiery of a war that was justified by that act.
There's much more to fear from that fundamentalism than from a dictator who rants a bit to look good domestically.
Afterall, fundamentalists do attack Israel. And now they've been handed an opportunity to thrive in the power vacuum.

As far as I've noticed, the fundamentalists have not taken charge of the country just yet.

As I said, "I" is an egoistic comment. I acknowledge the points you brough up. I fully understand that this really is just a side-effect and that it alone cannot justify the war.
Still, I think that terrorism did receive a blow with the downfall of a regime supporting it. It was far from fatal, but a serious blow nevertheless.
As for the WMDs, I still believe they are somewhere out there, for the sole reason that I do not believe Saddam didn't have them.
But I do think the US and Britain have done many mistakes, and thus caused a lot of harm - not in their decision to invade Iraq, but in the way they have done it. But it's a rather sensitive topic I rather not touch.

[Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

But should you? Saddam may have had the capability, but in all likelihood he'd never actually have done anything. Since the Kuwait invasion, he's seemed more of a talker than a doer.

Now, instead of Iraq's weapons (admittedly not of mass destruction) being controlled by Saddam, they are most likely being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

Does it make you feel any safer that an anonymous terrorist might now posess the weapons, rather than a regime which could have been held to account for anything it did with them?

For years, the biggest budget in the IDF (which is the government body with the biggest budget) belonged to the defensive systems against the Iraqi threat from the East. The Hetz (Arrow) system, for example, was far from cheap, even with massive US help.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore. Guerilla fighters cannot command an army to send long range ballistic missiles. Terrorists, on the other hand, are something Israel handles every day in various forms, for good or for bad, and it's hard to believe that they can buy something they don't have already, or come in larger numbers than thay do now. The terrorist threat has stayed much as it was, but the shadow from the East (what a cute LotR reference  ) has been removed.


I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance. Arguably, it's most important decision was of the foundation of two independent states on the Land of Israel. The UN is to weak a power to be able to solve this problem.

"I" is an egoistic term. I do not feel safer for the Iraqi people, or for the American soldiers. I feel safer for myself. I know many other people who feel the same way. The main potential immediate threat to the existence of my country has been disabled.

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.