War has already started

Epsilon · February 19, 2003, 11:09:11

True... BUT

It is Bush's fault we have gotten this far in the first place. There was no need for that massive buildup of forces 2 or 3 weeks ago. With such a buildup of forces, it's almost impossible NOT to go to war, and I believe that's why Bush did it. Of course Washington says that the Gulf War never ended and has been fought still over the past 10 years.

I would still like to think that the original ideas the American founding fathers had for this country still are worth something and that WE, the people, can stop Bush if we want to... afterall, he is supposed to be representing US and OUR ideas.

But I will admit that is pretty much fantasy idea at this time. [V]

I agree with you PW in that right now it's just a matter of time...

Adrian · February 19, 2003, 11:24:45

Greetings!

Bush is beginning to realise the depth of opposition against pre-emptive aggression against Iraq, and even if he isn't, PM Tony Blair of the UK most certainly is.

Neither of them can afford to pursue personal and/or political campaigns in the face of such severe opposition - not only from their allies (for now), but from their own people. This isn't Kuwait being invaded, it is potential pre-emptive aggression against a foreign country, and which is absolutely no different to Iraq invading Kuwait.

These so called "leaders" risk alienating both themselves and their countries if they do follow through with this ridiculous, self serving folly - not that I think Bush will understand that - Blair certainly does.

With best regards,

Adrian.

Hephaestus · February 19, 2003, 14:54:00

The war has been planned to go ahead with or without UN approval - the US gov doesnt care about ruffling foreign feathers because it doesnt matter - countries will still trade with the US because otherwise it would equal worldwide economic hardship and vice versa if the US stopped trading with the world.
Things will continue on as they did do before the war long after this new gulf war. America needs no help from no one militarily, they dont really need anyone, theres no reason for them to listen to the rest of the world.
Im British not American but I can still see this fact.

The only reason they're putting on this show is to gain American public backing not international, nothing worse than a civil war.

Parmenion · February 19, 2003, 15:14:21

quote:
Originally posted by Adrian

Greetings!

Bush is beginning to realise the depth of opposition against pre-emptive aggression against Iraq, and even if he isn't, PM Tony Blair of the UK most certainly is.

These so called "leaders" risk alienating both themselves and their countries if they do follow through with this ridiculous, self serving folly - not that I think Bush will understand that - Blair certainly does.

I was delighted to see that Blair is re-thinking his stance on this.My biggest fear so far about the war is an attack on sellsfield nuclear plant.Greenpeace did a study on the effects of this happening.They predict that the immediate death toll will be 3.5 million while the overall devastation will be 44times worse than chernoble!With Blair not backing Bush so agressively hopefully the likelyhood of this happening is lessened.

Parmenion

P.S. I live in Dublin so if Sellafield does go my fate will be decided on the wind.Literally

Epsilon · February 19, 2003, 16:45:18

Well Parmenion, I think I have some "good" news for you...
I worked at Exelon, which has the largest number of nuclear power plants in the USA if not the world. While working there I was able to go on a trip to a nuclear power plant in my area. We learned ALL about it, and even got to go into the "core" (the room that the rods are in water) and I can say reassure you that an attack on a nuclear power plant that causes a meltdown is very unlikely. First of all, access to plants (atleast in US, and I assume in Europe too, as both hold high saftey standards) on the ground is very tough. Not just anyone can get close to a plant. Once you get near the plant, there are about 3 or 4 fences around the perimeter with some of the ugliest barbed-wire I've seen. Once inside all the perimeter fences, the only way you can actually get INSIDE a plant is to have a special ID card. The only way we got to go in as a tour is because we had to give our names and social security numbers a week in advance so they could do background checks on all of us. So on foot, it is impossible to get inside.
Now let's go from the perspective of a suicide truck bombing or something similar. Even if a truck could get by all the many gates required to get in, AND successfuly rammed the vehicle into the plant, the core would still be safe. You would be amazed how many feet of solid concrete protects the actual core. I forget the actual number but it is amazing. A direct hit would still not do anything.
That leaves an air attack. First of all it would be very unlikely the UK would allow an enemy plane to get anywhere near the plant, but even if one did, the bombs would still have to penetrate that concrete, which I don't see happening, unless some of the strongest bombs known are used in multiple numbers.
I would also like to say that here in the U.S., routine SEAL TEAM operations take place just in case someone DID manage to get by all the security (inside job or whatever).

Basically, don't worry about the power plant near you. The only reason chernobyl (sp?) happened was because the Russians didn't give 2 diarrhea about safety and basically had the core exposed, only an ALUMINUM shed protecting it... [V] Not good. But Europe and the U.S. are not that careless.

MJ-12 · February 19, 2003, 17:55:02

vc

James S · February 19, 2003, 20:38:47

On the side issue here regarding Chernobyl, It was built as safe and as solid as any other nuclear plant in the world. The accident was actually caused by a bunch of researchers who were very highly gifted in the art of extreme stupidity.

What happened was these researchers were running some experiments with the core. Each time they ran this experiment (I dont have the exact details of what it was they were trying to do), one of the automatic safeties was tripped, shutting down the core, and their experiment. Being determined to get the results they were seeking, they bypassed the safety and went on.

This did not happen just once. These morons bypassed three levels of safeties on the core, obviously with total disregard for exactly why the safeties were there to begin with. On the fourth attempt they found out the hard way, as did every living thing within whatever radius, why they should not have ignored the last three warnings.

As with Epsilon, I too have been in the room around the core of a reactor (Lucas Heights in Sydney Aus.) This is only a small research reactor, but it still has a very large ammount of security and safety systems. I would consider nuclear reactors to be one of the least viable targets for terrorists.

We Australians should know all about terrorists now. Our insightful government has just wasted millions of dollars producing pamphlets for every household telling us what to do in case of a terrorist attack. The most use this pamphlet will be is if we see a terrorist, crumple up the pamphlets into a very tight little ball and throw them at the terrorist. Either that or give the pamphlet to the terrorist to read. They'll be incapacitated from laughing so hard.

As to Iraq, I'd say most of the Australian public are very much put out with our PM at the moment as he apears to be doing nothing more than following Bush around like a little yes-man.

James.

Rob · February 20, 2003, 03:18:15

Didn't a load of greenpeace activists with wire cutters manage to get inside a nuke plant in the UK recently? Just to prove how vulnerable we really are. If they could get in, guys with guns wouldn't find it too had to completely take over. And then....explosives.....suiside nutters....paints a nasty picture.

Lysear · February 20, 2003, 05:17:45

yeah it was sizewell b power plant in east anglia not too far from my family.

Epsilon · February 20, 2003, 07:06:37

James S, you're right about Chernobyl. I was thinking of a different plant the Russians messed up on.

I'd also like to point out that it's not the large towers that matter. A lot of people think the tower(s) are the core, or that if the towers are blown up, there will be a meltdown. The towers are just cooling towers. Blowing them up won't do much except force the plant to close down until they're fixed.

Just DON'T WORRY. It's not worth it, and it's way too unlikely.
Anyways, I feel like we got waaay off subject too, and I apologize since I was the catalyst for the shifting of subjects. OOPS![

]

Anonymous · February 20, 2003, 16:59:18

There are already terrorists from Al Quida and other organizations inside our countries. They're called sleeper agents, and the reason the US is taking away all our freedoms is to catch these guys. (They BETTER catch them if they take away our rights). The best way to stop them is to try to cut off Osama from communicating with them. I don't know if I like having our freedoms and privacies taken away though, because it is still a violation of what we are entitled to. As Ben Franklin said, "He who would substitute freedom for safety deserves neither." Personally, I really could care less about Iraq. They're not a threat to us. The "secret" weapons they're hiding is probably a donkey strapped to a cart full of gunpowder.

Parmenion · February 20, 2003, 17:10:23

At the end of the day all we can do here is speculate and theorise about what may or may not occur.Whatevers going to happen,will happen.I guess Epsilon is right, dont worry about it. Unless of course, you have a part to play.

Parmenion

MJ-12 · February 20, 2003, 17:36:42

gf

Anonymous · February 22, 2003, 17:46:35

This government sucks. Can we exchange it for a new one next time we go to the mall?

Anonymous · February 22, 2003, 17:50:35

Maybe this war is a distraction to something else we ought to be paying attention to.

Spirit_Gurl · February 23, 2003, 15:40:11

so, basically, there's no point to writing to senetors and stuff about not having the war. is that what your saying?[xx(]

Epsilon · February 23, 2003, 15:47:17

Not really... [V] If Bush wants war, he'll get war, not matter what... Heck, he doesn't even care about the millions of people around the world that protested like a week ago. He said the protests doesn't change his attitude towards Iraq. I posted the link somewhere on this forum... Just what you like to hear from a president, huh? "I don't care if you (the people I represent, and millions other all around the world) don't want war" is basically what he said... [}:)]

Spirit_Gurl · February 24, 2003, 08:18:59

so, basically, there's no point to writing to senetors and stuff about not having the war. is that what your saying?[xx(]

Epsilon · February 24, 2003, 10:21:55

When I said "not really" I meant it as a reply to your question/statement: "so, basically, there's no point to writing to senetors and stuff about not having the war"

Writing to senators won't do much of anything at this point. Maybe 6 months ago, but Bush doesn't need any further approval from congress to go to war, so I don't know what bothering congress members is going to do.

PeacefulWarrior · February 19, 2003, 10:57:15

While everyone continues to debate the war, it's already started. Psychological operations are happening right now. The CIA is dropping leaflets, setting up contact, spying and even CALLING generals on their personal cell phones and sending emails to PERSONAL accounts telling them to turn on Sadaam right when the war starts.

The ball is rolling. It's now a matter of when/how everything else going to happen.

News:

War has already started

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous