View Full Version : possible nuclear war - never very uplifting news
Britain sounded a warning yesterday about the "real and very disturbing" possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, is to fly to Delhi and Islamabad next week to try to avert the region sliding into a conflict "with potentially devastating consequences".
"This is a crisis the world cannot ignore," he said yesterday.
from http://www.guardian.co.uk
just when the beautiful song of a bird in the park cheers you up , this sort of news bring you down again . . . .
Weishaupt
22nd May 2002, 13:20
The question is, how much involved we´re in europe if the war beginns??????
Atarythm
22nd May 2002, 13:25
The question is, how much involved we´re in europe if the war beginns??????
Yes, that's right. But also, how do the europeans and americans governement reacting will in this case ?
Weishaupt
22nd May 2002, 13:32
Difficult.
Yesterday i thougt, we must shout down the right persons in Indian and packistan. Crazy, i know but what is better, 2 Dead People or 2 Millardes Dead people????????
jamyna
22nd May 2002, 13:35
We are all involved!
Pakistan is at the centre of more that one of the world's tensions these days, maybe that is why the British military "get Osama" strategy is not venturing that deep into the mountains; there is, as always, more that one motive for action or the lack of it.
Unfortunately this crisis is something which has been bubbling for some time, remember that Pakistan, if I recall correctly, was the last power to test its nuclear muscle - and pretty damn close to the Indian border it was too.
Weishaupt
22nd May 2002, 13:45
The world must impend wÃ*th many embargos...................... ..
Gameboy
22nd May 2002, 13:53
been coming for ages I think..
Atarythm
22nd May 2002, 14:00
Yesterday i thougt, we must shout down the right persons in Indian and packistan. Crazy, i know but what is better, 2 Dead People or 2 Millardes Dead people????????
It's surely not a good solution, kill them and 2 another will take their place.
The only way is that something in their brains says : STOP, now it's enough, find another solution. But it doesn't happen in the real life... :(
actionjetzon
22nd May 2002, 14:20
How can anybody think about to drop a nuclear bomb on our planet. The only planet we know, where live is possible!!!
fuck them all and save the planet
Weishaupt
22nd May 2002, 14:37
@ Atarythm
Yes, you´re right. It scarres me when i´m think about it.
naund
22nd May 2002, 15:01
most of the times the same story...religious faith combined with weaponry and underdeveloped social behaviour...
...my worst nightmare
phdbob
22nd May 2002, 15:02
wwIII
i must come! but cheer up only the human race itself is in danger...things will surely go on without us!
booooom!
Weishaupt
22nd May 2002, 15:03
Na Bravo!
naund
22nd May 2002, 15:06
:D
Atarythm
22nd May 2002, 17:11
I feel really shamed to be a human when I see such situations... fortunately it is only a minority of peoples who are like that...
The worst thing about this war is it will force people to take sides. And I don't think America will take Pakistan's side, meaning that Europe won't either.
Then it'll become the world verses Pakistan, probably the US will suddenly realise that the Taliban were formed in Pakistan originally (something they've pretty much ignored so far) and renew it with their "War on Terrorism" thing, and beat Pakistan into submission, making them deperate enough to launch their nuclear weapons against nearby targets.
Say goodbye to the middle east.
Ruben A
22nd May 2002, 17:27
..it won´t happen..
something tells me that there´s something going on that we don´t know... and that there are some "civilised" people that have known this for months/maybe years... even CIA/pentagon knew about the plans of taliban before 11. september..??!
war sucks anyway.... shoot´em up!
:!
The President knew about how Al Qaeda planned to hijack several US planes, he definately knew about that. Yet didn't act or prepare anything.
It's unknown whether or not Bush knew this, but both the CIA and FBI knew that Al Qaeda were training pilots in the United States, and knew that they had a plan to use planes as a weapon.
Please tell me that they are able to put two and two together?
wired
22nd May 2002, 18:12
i think every war is bad... expecially a nuclear war... and it'S not necessary where a war begins, maybe we're all involved... remember... pakistan is a muslime land, and also afghanistan, irak, iran, libanon, liberia, the palestinians etc... but no time for make them all the same... india and pakistan should get a peacefull solution around the kashmere-conflict.... but what do i say... like millions of other people...
piscaries
22nd May 2002, 20:19
if things get atomic, i can only hope that i'm at the center of an explosion. no way do i want to survive to live through the aftermath. who can imagine what will happen if a true nuclear war errupts? our world could become a radioactive pile of mush in the span of a few hours. maybe some giant intergalactic being could use our planet as a day-glo bouncy ball?
dr.tInY
22nd May 2002, 21:02
be realistic.
we (normal people) won´t be able to notice anything before it happens.
dont let
mislead
(scheiß englischer imperativ ;) )
lo_fi
22nd May 2002, 21:30
The question is, how much involved we´re in europe if the war beginns??????
it doesnt matter that people will die??!!!
its no matter that they will not die in britain but it matters that someone could die somewhere else (even in britain)
hmmm.... or something like that....
i've made a horrible mishmash :)
phdbob
22nd May 2002, 22:25
fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity...uh...uh...
agree war is bad (if it hits you personally) but what else would regulate the flood of useless protein bags and how else could a nation show it´s superiority. a famous man said that all evolution and progress is useless unless the MIND developes...man is not living in caves...and you would not (mostly) be killed for a big-mac when a stronger (hungry) guy catches you in the wild (the most achivements of civilisation in my opinion) but as long there is the illusion of "me" and "you" there´ll be war, hatred and all the disney adventures that surround us...patriot, pershing, ss20...
very wise talk here as you assume i´m an expert in all topics!
don´t hesitate to ask my expertise!
i´ll probably know it!
sure i will!
certainly!
ahh!
marcel
22nd May 2002, 23:34
if you want to know more than the mainstreampress is telling you go there -> www.heise.de/tp
telepolis a good internetmagazine
@ marcel
I find that magazine quite biased sometimes, it was especially biased over September 11th, a lot of stuff when up there that was simply untrue.
aleks
23rd May 2002, 08:53
everything is a lie...life as well and we´re all going to die soon lol
marcel
23rd May 2002, 09:22
@loz you're right. tey are a little bit extreme sometimes, but thats the mainstreampress in the other direction too. i know that you can't believe everything what is written there.
but to get an own opinion you need to hear different sides of a topic- that's what it's all about
namshub
23rd May 2002, 09:36
machine guns sound like gabba to me....bring it on!.....ooops sorry
i'm ashtrylien
phdbob
23rd May 2002, 09:37
no news without ideology is there?
lucid rinehead
23rd May 2002, 11:10
all reporting/relaying is coloured by opinion...what we need is cybermechanoid journalists
....or maybe random reporting: 'in israel earlier this morning a man was reported to have taken a piss'. you would have to take in quite a lot of information but you would get an unskewed picture of what most of the world was really doing.
Although there is no reporting without agenda, some places seem to do better than others. Although many of you might disagree with me on this, I find the BBC news site the most useful. It's not unbiased, they do have a slightly distrustful view of America, but you can work out what is fact and what is speculation.
There is a rather large difference between opinions and fact, although they are just as important as each other.
amble
23rd May 2002, 12:01
there can't really be a truly objective media imo. consuming this would be like reading statistics: ultimately boring!
for the kaschmir-conflict, i think both the indian and the pakistanian presidents are under pressure in their countries. if one is not popular in inner-politics he seeks his luck in the outer-policy, that's been a principle in politics ever since (coincidently it also worked for mr. bush).
there's been two wars between them allready, india has sent a million troops to the border now. not very uplifting.
i wonder what place america will take, they can't really let pakistan fall down since their arab coalition would break apart then.
speculating about europes roll in this is redundant because we are all americas colonies . :-p
phdbob
23rd May 2002, 12:02
facts? what facts...and who selects what´s important enough to be televised?
the best news is the one that you gather yourself...watching tv/reading newspaper etc. just distracts you from realizing whats should concern you most...your surroundings...
who cares about all the usual shit when it´s compared with 2373472345 dead children somewhere?
don´t read books!
phdbob
23rd May 2002, 12:03
...and no 2.nd hand information!
@phdbob : You have to care about the usual shit when there are people dying, otherwise we'd never get anything done.
It's sad and cynical to say, but life goes on. Sure, I'm upset and annoyed by Countries who think it's big and clever to fight wars, but on the other hand, which country is any better?
From the major western powers point of view, they're also in a dilema. What do they do? Go in and try to make peace, they get accused of interfering. Leave these countries to blow each other up, they get accused of not caring about anything outside their borders. It's a very thin line they have to walk.
However, what I am against is America's bomb and bullet politics. If a country doesn't act a way they like, then they attack them into submission (or not, as Afghanistan seems to be). Oh, unless they're major trade partners (like China, who's abysmal human rights record with Tibet is overlooked by every major government because China's worth a bit of money).
Like I said, at least with true anarchy you can have no agendas, although true anarchy could never exist, egos and ambition always get in the way.
yeh, china.....the aus PM is over there at the mo, while the dalai lama is over here, PM was giving a speech and one of the pollies in the crowd grilled him about how having the lama over was pretty much an insult to china (can't remember the correct words)....bloody awful it is, they just cannot see how wrong and broken they are, I'm just thankful we are so far away from all that crap over here....
Howard is a bit of a twat anyway, isn't he? I remember him getting into big trouble for touching the Queen.
howard is the worst fucking PM we have ever had , I bloodywell hate that fucking deadshit whatever (I could swear forever about him)....anyway, yes he did touch the queen once, but he wasn't the first, the PM before him, Paul Keating touched her on the bum methinks (howard only touched her on the back)..
nothinghere
23rd May 2002, 14:20
Were is everyone located? me-Detroit
Whats funny (well not really) is that there is very little talk of this on the news here. i found more out from this thread than I have from any local news source. American media/politics and what they report are so "loaded". They are very good at leading the public.
I'm from the UK, near Cambridge
on my trips to the US, I have found the US media, incredably local. It seems that most news doesn't care about anything outside of their state, and certainly nothing outside the US borders.
And CNN is so incredibly biased it's laughable.
@mui - why has your labour party spelt it Labor? As far as I know you speek and spell exactly like the British, but why did they decide to go for the American spelling for the party name?
nothinghere
23rd May 2002, 15:50
cnn is hilarious, i recommend it over soap operas and day:]
marcel
23rd May 2002, 16:51
Originally posted by Loz
I'm from the UK, near Cambridge
and you know telepolis? do you speak german or do you read only the english articles there?
phdbob
23rd May 2002, 16:52
i´ve been in cambridge once and was nearly beaten up by some local-rowing-club-lads...funny place with all these interesting buildings and f&c-shops...
remember some river where you could rent a gondola-boat...first place ever i had the elephant-beer-test!
phdbob
23rd May 2002, 16:57
@loz
---
You have to care about the usual shit when there are people dying, otherwise we'd never get anything done.
---
i actually meant that it´s important to care about the usual...the stuff that actually surrounds you...and not to get distracted and recalibrated by more important matters...
don´t really see the point in THINK GLOBAL ACT LOCAL...prefer to SEE LOCAL ACT GLOBAL...
lucid rinehead
23rd May 2002, 17:33
i tried acting global once but i didn't have the arms for it.
oops no pun intended
@ marcel: An Australian friend of mine (who speaks German) put me onto it originally. I read the english bits, and then use bablefish for the other ones that interest me. You usually get the gist from those.
@phdbob: yeah, that's basically it. War is important, and it's important to react against war, but you have to realise that your effect on the actions of nations is small on your own, but your actions on the small things in life have big effects. It's all kind of a balance, I guess.
Loads of people get beaten up in Cambridge, Eddie Izzard did once, for wearing make up, they kept calling him Tracy. He took them to court for GBH, and they claimed he started it, like a guy who put on make up just to start a fight. A couple of my friends got beaten up too, and I almost did, but fortunately I do a very good unhinged psycho look when I want to, good way to avoid violence.
Sheridan
23rd May 2002, 22:09
I am originally from Washington D.C. so I know all too well about how my government works. I am living in Florida right now while I go to school, and down here the news is so blind. blind in the meaning of the fact that they only cover local stuff, and they don't really touch the international stories.
as far as the best news coverage; I think that the BBC has the most unbiased coverage.
one reason that american news is messed up is because of cable television. before cable the only networks we had were ABC, NBC, CBS, and later on FOX. they were in competition with each other. when cable became popular and channels like CNN, MSNBC and the like came around the majors had more competition. so they needed to make their shows more entertaining to gain viewership. thus our news became more sensational.
@loz.....I dunno why they spell it labor, actually I never really took any notice of the spelling till you pointed it out....they probably want to stay away from the english spelling of everything they are totally pushing for a republic (whereas the libs are old fash and love the queen), our state gov. is labor and they've removed all the crowns from their symbols and taken down the pics of the queen in the state govt. offices, all this despite the masses voting in favour of keepin the monarcy (god knows why)....meh, democracy at work I spose
@mui: I enjoy taunting Australians and Canadians about their queen.. nothing gets them more upset.
But at the end of the day, the Queen does fuck all, it wouldn't probably make the slightest difference to you if she was Australia's Queen or not. I don't give a shit what she does, I can safely ignore her.
I can't say I really get upset about having the queen......because I really don't care about her and what she does because she's totally irrelevant . The thing that does piss me off is that when we had the chance to move on, people voted against it...
V Knid esq
26th May 2002, 13:10
Oh shit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/26/wkash26.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/05/26/ixworld.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=118546
@Knid: I just read that.. that's quite amazingly scary. I didn't live through any of the really bad bits of the cold war, but with mutually assured destruction, it would have meant we'd have died almost instantly anyway.
With the smaller nukes that Pakistan and India have.. we just have fallout to look forward to.
lucid rinehead
27th May 2002, 17:09
loz, we might need dr strangelove back...mine shafts anyone?
boffin
28th May 2002, 04:51
[QUOTE]Originally posted by phdbob
fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity...uh...uh...
er...i guess if a bunch of soldiers from another land invade your country, burn your house down and rapeyour mother it's ok and in the name of peace as long as you didn't fight.....nice theory cute adage but doesn't hold water for me, thanks.
@boffin: I think the point being made is that both Israel and Pakistan should not be fighting in the first place. They should be talking.
If someone invades your country, you have every right to defend yourself, but if you are fighting someone because you want peace with them, you're not going to get very far.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.