Terrorism in the London

[CrAz3D]

Nukes less than 5kilotons still produce radioactive material I read...

[EpicOfTimeWasted]

So you can tell me for sure thats what would happen? How do you know that? Its just your guess and what YOU might do in that situation, but its not neccessarily true.

Fine, you win.  If you want to deal solely in absolutes, then you're correct, I can't say with absolute certainty that I know what will happen.

But, since when have world leaders, and other people with their finger on the button, relied on absolutes?

[Adron]

Congratulations, you're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else that honestly believes that dropping a nuclear warhead on ANY piece of land on this planet is a good idea.

There's one place a nuclear warhead could really be good. Jerusalem. As long as it stands, people are going to fight for it. Flatten it, and maybe there'll be peace.

[Adron]

Fact:
The US of A didn't get where it is today by sitting around doing jack shit while other countries did it for us.  We didn't wait for the Kind of England to forget about us & just accept his taxes for now, we stood up for what was right & said screw you!...We're doing what is right & just.

That is, you're doing what you claim is right and just. Just like everyone else, fanatic terrorists included.

[Adron]

Look, all we had to do was piss one guy off to cause 9/11, and he paid relatively very little to do the damage he did, which costed us exponentially more.  The idea is to piss as few people off as possible in this war.  That way we have fewer of these incidents...and fewer of this exponential damage.

I think this is key... You don't want to be pissing people off, because pissed off people will always cause trouble.

[Hazard]

So you can tell me for sure thats what would happen? How do you know that? Its just your guess and what YOU might do in that situation, but its not neccessarily true.

Fine, you win.  If you want to deal solely in absolutes, then you're correct, I can't say with absolute certainty that I know what will happen.

But, since when have world leaders, and other people with their finger on the button, relied on absolutes?

Fine then, we won't deal in absolutes. What makes you qualified to speak as to what you believe the leaders of the Middle East would do. Would it be your extensive study on foreign policy with a speciality in the Middle East? Have you met the Middle Eastern leaders? Hrm?

[CrAz3D]

Fact:
The US of A didn't get where it is today by sitting around doing jack shit while other countries did it for us.  We didn't wait for the Kind of England to forget about us & just accept his taxes for now, we stood up for what was right & said screw you!...We're doing what is right & just.

That is, you're doing what you claim is right and just. Just like everyone else, fanatic terrorists included.

Logically who is right?  Are they right because they have decided our lifestyle is evil & have begun to kill us?  Are we right because we retaliate after being attacked?...seems to me like what we are doing is only self defense...it'd stand up in a US court of law, why can't it stand up internationally?

[Arta]

FYI, most of the western world is pretty glad not to have the US's justice system, at least, that's been my observation. IMHO, many aspects of it are pretty screwed up.

No one is right. The only answer is to stop people becoming terrorists in the first place. This will take a very, very, very long time. Violence may help in the short term, but in the long term, it will accomplish absolutely nothing, and imho, there's a good chance that it'll accomplish nothing in the short term too... except to create more terrorists. It's a vicious circle, and a really, really, really obvious one, at that.

[Topaz]

Would you consider revolutionists terrorists? Doing the evil thing in order to achieve the right path for humanity?

I think you need to consider it from both sides. Sure, they're killing people, but people on our streets and our country die everyday because of common maladies. Why don't we help them?

[Arta]

I agree. Terrorism is actually a very small problem -- even after 9/11 -- if you view it in terms of 'deaths caused'. For example, far more deaths are caused every year by smoking, preventable disease and road accidents, than are caused by terrorists. The whole issue needs to be viewed with a good sense of perspective.

Far more deaths could have been prevented if the money spent on the war in Iraq was spent on hospitals, public health campaigns and road safety legislation/enforcement.

[Topaz]

Bush's incentive, at heart, was right. However, he took the wrong approach. WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.

[Hazard]

I agree. Terrorism is actually a very small problem -- even after 9/11 -- if you view it in terms of 'deaths caused'. For example, far more deaths are caused every year by smoking, preventable disease and road accidents, than are caused by terrorists. The whole issue needs to be viewed with a good sense of perspective.

Far more deaths could have been prevented if the money spent on the war in Iraq was spent on hospitals, public health campaigns and road safety legislation/enforcement.

Yea, we would have needed those hospitals. If we hadn't done anything, they'd be attacking us again and again, since they knew we'd do nothing.

Arta, I'm not going to lie to you. If I was in command of a hostile nation trying to expand my power and you were in command of England, I'd attack you all out. Why? Because from all the talking that I've done with you, I've come to the conclusion that in response you'd build a hospital and send me a fax telling me what I'm doing is wrong. Tisk tisk, appeasement doesn't work. Just ask your ol' chap Neville.

[Arta]

WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.

...except there weren't any, and arguably, they knew it. Anyone remember that footage of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice saying that Iraq was no threat? Before 9/11 obviously. I guess we'll never really know.

[Arta]

I agree. Terrorism is actually a very small problem -- even after 9/11 -- if you view it in terms of 'deaths caused'. For example, far more deaths are caused every year by smoking, preventable disease and road accidents, than are caused by terrorists. The whole issue needs to be viewed with a good sense of perspective.

Far more deaths could have been prevented if the money spent on the war in Iraq was spent on hospitals, public health campaigns and road safety legislation/enforcement.

Yea, we would have needed those hospitals. If we hadn't done anything, they'd be attacking us again and again, since they knew we'd do nothing.

Arta, I'm not going to lie to you. If I was in command of a hostile nation trying to expand my power and you were in command of England, I'd attack you all out. Why? Because from all the talking that I've done with you, I've come to the conclusion that in response you'd build a hospital and send me a fax telling me what I'm doing is wrong. Tisk tisk, appeasement doesn't work. Just ask your ol' chap Neville.

If we were speaking in person I'd roll my eyes and blow a raspberry at you

You're assuming that:

a) they would attack over and over again, and
b) that the total casualties from those attacks would exceed those which arise from more easily preventable causes over the same period of time.

I think that (a) is highly unlikely, and (b) is certainly false. Taking one, isolated event, and extrapolating it into a series of events, is not sensible.

[nslay]

WMD's would've killed millions, and ruined the quality of life for millions more to come.

...except there weren't any, and arguably, they knew it. Anyone remember that footage of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice saying that Iraq was no threat? Before 9/11 obviously. I guess we'll never really know.

...except we put Saddam in power and gave him some (minor ones) originally.