Another Nail in the Coffin
@ 13/07/06 - 09:33:47For civillisation. The train bombings in Mumbai have reached a death toll of 200, with over 700 injured. In what commentators are indicating are attacks inspired by Madrid and London, it seems we commuters are the ultimate soft target. I mused on this some time ago, before Madrid, before Beslan, that if terror and carnage was your game there were far easier groups to slaughter than military ones. It can't be a co-incidence that suddenly, there's a lot of police on London Underground.
So it goes. India joins Spain, France, Russia and ourselves in coming to terms with act of spite and cowardice . . . although give the residents of Mumbai their due, the trains are as packed yesterday as ever they were. Varshakale puts this succinctly and nicely in her blog. "India will not kneel" is the admirable attitude coming from government, what's more uncertain is how this will affect the Kashmir situation and escalate conflict with Pakistan.
Photo nicked from the Guardian - Ritesh Uttamchandani/AP
Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Lebonese Hezbollah decide to up the stakes in the Palestinian/Israel conflict and capture two more Israeli soldiers. Israel declares this an "act of war" even as it is busy shelling civillians and peppering population centres with helicopter-fired rockets (because the first causualty in war is irony, you know?).
This morning they attack Beirut airport, and attacks further in the south of Lebanon have killed 22 civillians. They're damn lucky that during their bombing of the runway, they didn't hit a passenger jet just flown in from Cyprus.
The way this is going we're looking at another full-scale conventional war or, and I hope to God I'm wrong, Israel popping off a theatre nuke.
I'm not sure if this is genuine or not, but in a TV show the other day, a Native American Indian character said "when enough blood has spilt on the ground, it cries out for more". Sounds more like a screenwriter than a genuine proverb, but a theory I've had for the Middle East for a good long while.
Of course this isn't helped by the rest of us, either. The US supplies military equipment to Israel even though it knows damn well that Israel has nukes. The usual suspects aer also behind blocking an attempt to control the proliferation of small arms. Shit, it's like we don't want peace on this planet, we'd all rather fight eachother until there's nothing and no-one left.
Comments: Hide subcomments
Hmm. They accept a nuclear armed Israel, but when Iran tries to develop nuclear weapons....
 | Vort1gern [Member] 2006-07-13 @ 12:55 |
I'd give up on rational logic in this situation Ros, it ain't gonna work!
 | rithompson [Member] http://random-veryrandom.blog.co.uk 2006-07-13 @ 19:11 |
I was thinking of the hypocrisy in the situation. Especially the west!
 | Alexa1000 [Member] http://www.v-alexander.com 2006-07-14 @ 18:21 |
lol! Go visit Iran dear one and then tell us if you still feel it fair they have nuclear bombs like the others.
You might just have a good time, but do note that when you step off the plane you give up most of your rights.
| rithompson [Member] http://random-veryrandom.blog.co.uk 2006-07-15 @ 09:59 |
Fair!? Who said anything about fair?!
Just find it amusing that the only people who are actually allowed to possess nuclear weapons are people that are friends with America!
Personally, I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons; but enough about my ideal world!
| Alexa1000 [Member] http://www.v-alexander.com 2006-07-15 @ 15:51 |
That is right. There should be no nuclear weapons no matter what! Totally agree.
As far as those being friends with America being allowed to have nuclear weapons I think that stems from the fact that never in history has one 'democratic' country bombed another 'democratic' country, so it is not a concern if an allie has such weapons, though I am sure it is duly noted.
Unfortunately the way of the world is that there is always a super power, though history has shown there is an infinite amount of sand in the hour glass for any given power. What other country might be a more agreeable super power than America? Iran??? China?
Anyway in an ideal world people do not judge a country on their current politics and they surely do not judge the people of the country on the actions of their government. America was not always what you see now. Prior to WWII American forgeign policy was that of isolationism, basically they did not want to get involved! It took the horror of Perl Harbor to make America join the war. It was after WWII that American began to emerge as a super power. Some country had to assume the position and I am sure we are all glad it was not Germany!
| rithompson [Member] http://random-veryrandom.blog.co.uk 2006-07-17 @ 09:09 |
Yes. I understand that before Pearl Harbor, Britain wanted America to join the war, but America were unsure about getting involved in a European war. After the war, America was in a good position to be a superpower, as the last European empires died.
It's true that a democratic country has never attacked another democratic country; however, a democratic country like America doesn't just have democratic countries as allies.
| Vort1gern [Member] 2006-07-18 @ 09:41 |
I think the paranoia concerning the Middle East and nuclear proliferation stems from the fact that MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - may not operate.
Even at the the height of the Cold War, despite the towering rhetoric and ideological head-on pile-up, it was always implict that despite how much each side was prepared to tool up with nuclear arms and threaten their deployment, the one thing they weren't hoping for was the opportunity to launch them.
Why? Because once one side launched, the other had about 20-30 minutes to fire all of its missiles so the "winner" might get to savour their victory over the radioactive ash of their country. What clashes did actually occur were limited via proxy forces (largely) on the conventional scale. The only nuclear incidents came from accidents from all the nuke-powered or nuke-toting vehicles on exercise, practising for war! (oh, the irony).
Given the frankly fanatical religious-political stance of some Middle Eastern nations, I think the West are quite cagey about whether they would think thay have too much to lose - if "Allah decrees it", then what's stopping them from setting off a device? Also, with all that oil money floating around, the prospect of bankrupting them in an arms race (like they did with the USSR) isn't as realistic an option either.
 | steinberg [Member] 2006-08-23 @ 17:45 |
Russia wasnt Friends with USA was it.
China also not friends with USA.
ooops.
Its as simple as this, would you give a large loaded gun to a certified nut case in a childrens playground.
Seriously would you ?
and why not, because you just know what would probably happen. SOONER OR LATER.
And this is exactly why nut cases shouldnt have atomic bombs.
Leave a comment :
Recent Posts
-
A Comment on Brown's "Leadership"
on 16/04/08 -
Couldn't resist it
on 28/01/08 -
2008 - A New End
on 02/01/08 -
Reports of My Blog-Death
on 17/12/07 -
An Insult to Intelligence
on 02/12/07 -
Some Observations
on 27/11/07 -
Wounded Knee
on 23/11/07 -
It surely should come as some relief . . .
on 21/11/07 -
Can You Survive?
on 19/11/07 -
Model Behaviour
on 09/11/07
http://random-veryrandom.blog.co.uk
2006-07-13 @ 10:03