I think weapons of distruction should not exist. We were put on this planet to help each other not kill and brutally split up families. The children should not witness such horror and violence.
COLIN, Thursday, 23 July 2009
If a foreign country's tank was parked on my street, i'd blow it to hell or die trying.
Jon, Monday, 6 July 2009
“There are two main strategies we can adopt to improve the quality of life. The first is to try making external conditions match our goals. The second is to change how we experience external conditions to make them fit our goals better. For instance, feeling secure is an important component of happiness. The sense of security can be improved by buying a gun, installing strong locks on the front door, moving to a safer neighbourhood, exerting political pressure on city hall for more police protection, or helping the community to become more conscious of the importance of civil order. All these different responses are aimed at bringing conditions in the environment more in line with our goals. The other method by which we can feel more secure involves modifying what we mean by security. If one does not expect perfect safety, recognizes that risks are inevitable, and succeeds in enjoying a less than ideally predictable world, the threat of insecurity will not have as great a chance of marring happiness.”
Czikszentmihalyi, Flow, p43, 2002
Barry, Sunday, 7 June 2009
Guns do not kill people, people do
goldfish, Monday, 1 June 2009
War huh, was is it good for....you get the message
flakeyliberal, Wednesday, 20 May 2009
there was a young guy in a tank
who wasn't keen to kill to be frank
but his resolve was made strong
cos he been told t'hey' were wrong
by those in authority and of rank
Vic, Wednesday, 20 May 2009
To be more specific, when someone comes to your home with munitions in tow, will it deter you, or will it make you angry? Having an opinion on military force in general doesn't quite seem to cut it unless you can answer this question honestly.
MADz, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
as a small child, u r almost forced to hate people who kill others, and yet as soon as a war starts up, u r forced to forget it all.
Avi Patchava, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
If only we all took more time in our everyday lives to consider the situations that surround us and the ethical dilemmas that stare us in the face, begging for answers.
Thank you, time to consider, for provoking thought.
Philip W, Sunday, 17 May 2009
Gandhi said it best "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Nick C, Sunday, 17 May 2009
All wars are caused by the manipulation of the many by the few who are either madmen, have intense ideological or religious ideas or have financial vested interests. The public should not support them.
Sean Scholfield, Sunday, 17 May 2009
Too expensive-we are living in a dream world if we think we can play War Games with America, and run the risk of total bankruptcy.
Simon, Saturday, 16 May 2009
Their existence is a deterrent.
Their use is a provocation.
zaj, Friday, 15 May 2009
This is reply to martin if you go back to the history and check properly it was the western countries who funded with money and arms to saddam while he was fighting with iran and the americans and western people did support him with chemical weapons it is the western countries which provokes others to use alternative ways rather then peace deals.
You cant be democratic country while on ther other hand you send smart bombs to kills others.
Aron, Tuesday, 12 May 2009
To Dani (but not only), about destroying all weaponry: read "A piece of wood", by Ray Bradbury ("Farenheit 451").
To DNS Digger: thank for this information.
Twigley, Monday, 11 May 2009
All I know is that if I had to walk down the street, the same street used by my family and friends, and I was within firing range of one of those tanks - I would take it a personal threat, a bullying tactic, directed at me and my loved ones.
It would provoke me to want something done about it.
MK, Sunday, 10 May 2009
They look foreign, so they are probalby just being provacative.
Martin Law, Thursday, 7 May 2009
Am I the only one who as forgotten that Saddam Husain DID have WMD and he DID use them - killing 25,000* Kurds. In my mind we were right to topple Saddam and remove one of the most evil men of our time. I also beleive that WMD could be very easy to hide and just becuase we didn't find them - that's insufficient proof that they never existed. In terms of the tanks, lets no forget that Hitler had them too. Are some of you saying that WWII shouldn't have happened either. And for those of you who still talk about Iraq in terms of invasion - dobn't forget that Saddam did invade Kuwait and did try to invade Iran. More than one million were killed in that one and - by the way - it was brother Muslims killing each other.
I believe that the unforgivable mistake was to not taking advantage of the initial Iraqi good will and consolidate with a massive restructuring package. In my opinion we needed for the lives of average Iraqi's to be massivly improve and had this happened the whole situation would have been viewed differently.
* The number quoted is based on my memory - don't shoot me down for that.
DNS Digger, Thursday, 7 May 2009
This campaign is run by CBS Outdoor, registered via their ISP, Titan Internet.
I suggest we all write to them and ask them who is paying and why. However, given the note below the comments box which says ("I am happy for Time To Consider to use my comment on this site and on London Underground as part of this campaign.") I suspect it is London Underground just playing with your heads in a rather lame copy of an excellent airport advertising campaign by HSBC last year.
olowolaiyemo, Thursday, 7 May 2009
Politics,they say is personal interest submerged in public interest.!weapons are a bad thing because those who give orders for weapons to be used on other countries(politicians)are not capable of telling or hearing the truth. Going to war has always been the interests on politicians who have something to hide or gain and the only way they do it is to lie about (i)llegitimate national interest and national security wraped up with the threat of terrorism.it's so sad.
Shakti, Wednesday, 6 May 2009
All I could consider was the subject itself was effect of human cruelty for his own personal gain. It's now high time for us considering totally ban of those activities that provokes others in order to transform this world into better place so that even when we leave this world our children can still know the value of animal and human life and respect it.
I would like to know, Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Who funds "time to consider"
In anycase, if it is a social experiment, then debate I guess can flow from pictures and few words alone. People set the actual debate, although with vague pictures like tanks, it makes less sense.
Oh well. It would be nice to know more about TIME TO CONSIDER
JoH, Monday, 4 May 2009
Although we want to believe we live in a safe world there will always be people who pose a threat to our safety. As a country we need to prove we aren't an easy target.
Shai, Friday, 1 May 2009
It often comes down to sound diplomacy in order to prevent war and oppression. The best defense for any people is a quality education which teaches not only math, science and literature but also world cultures and a very broad view of history that is not overly nationalist. The best defense is to spend less on military and more on stabilizing factors in other lands. We need to revisit the UN, work with it more closely and give it teeth to deal with the issues at hand. People throughout the world require a dignified quality of life. Give them this and they will oppose war.
Shai, Friday, 1 May 2009
It often comes down to sound diplomacy in order to prevent war and oppression. The best defense for any people is a quality education which teaches not only math, science and literature but also world cultures and a very broad view of history that is not overly nationalist. The best defense is to spend less on military and more on stabilizing factors in other lands. We need to revisit the UN, work with it more closely and give it teeth to deal with the issues at hand. People throughout the world require a dignified quality of life. Give them this and they will oppose war.
Lori, Friday, 1 May 2009
I strongly believe that it is necessary to have a strong military to defend the country.
Russ, Friday, 1 May 2009
I know. Let's not have weapons. Whenever there's a row between countries, put their politicians into a locked room and don't let them out until they've sorted out their problems.
jack, Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Susan, wake up please! Use your eyes & brain instead of feeding off dangerous propaganda. cant you tell the difference between truth & a pack of lies? If you knew your history, you wouldn’t be so ignorant. Your in your comfort zone. You live in a modern Rome, you cant grasp war! You feel safe where you live. let your government do other wise in other countries. You have no Idea! Its easy to say Terrorist for any sort of excuse these days...Do you really know the facts? Snap out of your trans!
Rick, Monday, 27 April 2009
Picture yourself in the land of the occupied people. That's where the tanks are sent. You look outside your window and there are 60-ton tanks tearing up what used to be your streets, going anywhere they want with impunity. Deterrent? I don't think so. Definitely provocative.
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
Darned shame you can't edit posts here isn't it?
Bottom line, there is only one approach to arms that is successful and sensible.
Arm as many law abiding people as possible, and disarm as many criminals as possible.
Anything else is a recipe for eventual disaster.
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
Oh and as for arms, look up the quotes of Cesare Beccaria, the 18th Century Italian criminologist. I can't quote it all here as soemhow the site has a problem with some of the words as being offensive (yet there's no offensive words in the quote).
It contains:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. "
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
David: "Kurt has it exactly right. Look at the abortion of legislation that the current government in the UK has introduced. "
Actually it's the EU. The blizzard of legislation originates with that den of thieves in Brussels.
The quicker the EU collapses the better. Then perhaps we can return to some sanity.
Which Country does everyone think will be the first to leave?
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it is Germany, after the things Angela Merkel has been saying in the last year.
Tony Marchant, Monday, 27 April 2009
THE GOVERMENT ARE THE TERRORISTS
Stuart, Sunday, 26 April 2009
As long as we crave financial security and reasonably cheap petrol and gas supplies, there will be a need to protect our interests, possibly by use of weaponary. Read into that what you will, but i think its something we need to consider next time we complain about (the price of) gas or petrol.
Dan, Saturday, 25 April 2009
I've been wondering, how many of these idealists who will protest against our brave soldiers actually realise they can only protest becuse of our brave soldiers. How many of them would actually have the guts to stand up to oppressoers were they to live in a country such as China, I think I know the answer. NONE! These people are cowards who hide behind 'equaity' and 'human rights' but have no real concept of what it takes to make these things happen.
David, Saturday, 25 April 2009
For those who are for the removal of all weapons, I would ask them that they bother to engage their idealistic brains, if they have two braincells to rub together.
Kurt has it exactly right. Look at the abortion of legislation that the current government in the UK has introduced.
The government were under pressure to act by a media feeding frenzy after the police made a number of failures to remove Thomas Hamilton's firearms licence (they only had about two years warning from their own officers that he was unstable and not fit to have one). The conservative government comissioned an investigation so they could act in an informed way. After the general election the Labour government then ignored most of the findings of that enquiry and instigated a ban on handguns.
They conveniently ignored the fact that if you criminalise guns, then only criminals will have guns. That combined with lax border controls means that gun crime instead of being less after the ban, has soared beyond all recognition since the ban was put in place.
The tank , like a handgun is an inanimate object. Leave it alone and it will sit there. It won't do anything of its own volition, and it won't hurt anyone.
Put someone inside it to operate it and the situation changes somewhat. Therefore it is a deterrent up until the point that it is used against somebody.
To be honest, politicians make wars and the army then has to provide the best outcome for their side using what they have. Perhaps if the politicians had to do the fighting and dying themselves? That wouldn't work in the modern age because the civilised world would then descend into tribal conflict, and all the pacifistic idealist do-gooder clamouring for disarmament will be the first victims of the new despotic regimes that would spring up everywhere.
More later.....
Kurt, Friday, 24 April 2009
In a world of clawless cats the dogs rule.
John A, Friday, 24 April 2009
Anyone that thinks this is a deterrent clearly doesnt know how war works or why they are started
sean, Friday, 24 April 2009
they should drive that tank into the lacs hq !
Keith in Brum, Friday, 24 April 2009
You cannot ban all weapons. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be someone somewhere who keeps a few hidden away "just in case".
I must admit I agree that all weapons should be banned, but I too would keep a gun hidden away "just in case" the other person decides to use HIS "just in case weapon" against me!
Once something has been invented, in can never be un-invented. Lets face it, the way to go is to make bigger and better weapons than your enemy in order to keep the peace.
Nick, Friday, 24 April 2009
Used properly they are a deterrent.
Peacenik, Thursday, 23 April 2009
They look foreign, so they are probalby just being provacative.
Chris, Thursday, 23 April 2009
The development of arms becomes dangerous when mixed with dangerous politcial ambition. If we take the US and Soviets during the Cold War, each nation used the development of arms to implement their dominance around the world. By giving weapons to other countries to fight proxy wars it no longer became about detterence, it was about gaining terretory by force. Playing toy soildiers is being done by those with selfish intentions to obtain supremacy of somekind. Other countries then react by developing their own weapons to defend themselves. Eventually a war breaks out and the cycle starts again but with more powerful weapons than before.
tm, Tuesday, 21 April 2009
deterrent. how do u stop foreign agressors invading? by having a strong military. thats why dubya didnt invade north korea, they actually have WMD's
Liberty, Monday, 20 April 2009
A lot of these pictures are open to a great deal of interpretation. Are those tanks agressors moving on a foreign country or a defensive deterrant within a country's own territory. Could they be a UN peace keeping force?
the art direction of the skyline is trying to make the picture ominous but without context it should be virtually impossible to answer this one - and i feel the same about the picture of the old man
BOB, Friday, 17 April 2009
It really depends how its used. If its used by George Bush now Obama then its Provocation
Fred Barboo, Friday, 17 April 2009
How is a tank going to prevent terrorism?
Hear, hear Dani.
Dani, Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Destroy all weaponry - it would be like a world of clawless cats!
Susan, Wednesday, 15 April 2009
In this mad world we need to protect ourselves from terrorist activity. Using it is a different matter altogether.
53% Brutality
Comments
Edmond Flynn, Friday, 27 November 2009
It depends on the circumstances.
none, Friday, 27 November 2009
I think weapons of distruction should not exist. We were put on this planet to help each other not kill and brutally split up families. The children should not witness such horror and violence.
COLIN, Thursday, 23 July 2009
If a foreign country's tank was parked on my street, i'd blow it to hell or die trying.
Jon, Monday, 6 July 2009
“There are two main strategies we can adopt to improve the quality of life. The first is to try making external conditions match our goals. The second is to change how we experience external conditions to make them fit our goals better. For instance, feeling secure is an important component of happiness. The sense of security can be improved by buying a gun, installing strong locks on the front door, moving to a safer neighbourhood, exerting political pressure on city hall for more police protection, or helping the community to become more conscious of the importance of civil order. All these different responses are aimed at bringing conditions in the environment more in line with our goals. The other method by which we can feel more secure involves modifying what we mean by security. If one does not expect perfect safety, recognizes that risks are inevitable, and succeeds in enjoying a less than ideally predictable world, the threat of insecurity will not have as great a chance of marring happiness.”
Czikszentmihalyi, Flow, p43, 2002
Barry, Sunday, 7 June 2009
Guns do not kill people, people do
goldfish, Monday, 1 June 2009
War huh, was is it good for....you get the message
flakeyliberal, Wednesday, 20 May 2009
there was a young guy in a tank
who wasn't keen to kill to be frank
but his resolve was made strong
cos he been told t'hey' were wrong
by those in authority and of rank
Vic, Wednesday, 20 May 2009
To be more specific, when someone comes to your home with munitions in tow, will it deter you, or will it make you angry? Having an opinion on military force in general doesn't quite seem to cut it unless you can answer this question honestly.
MADz, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
as a small child, u r almost forced to hate people who kill others, and yet as soon as a war starts up, u r forced to forget it all.
Avi Patchava, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
If only we all took more time in our everyday lives to consider the situations that surround us and the ethical dilemmas that stare us in the face, begging for answers.
Thank you, time to consider, for provoking thought.
Philip W, Sunday, 17 May 2009
Gandhi said it best "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Nick C, Sunday, 17 May 2009
All wars are caused by the manipulation of the many by the few who are either madmen, have intense ideological or religious ideas or have financial vested interests. The public should not support them.
Sean Scholfield, Sunday, 17 May 2009
Too expensive-we are living in a dream world if we think we can play War Games with America, and run the risk of total bankruptcy.
Simon, Saturday, 16 May 2009
Their existence is a deterrent.
Their use is a provocation.
zaj, Friday, 15 May 2009
This is reply to martin if you go back to the history and check properly it was the western countries who funded with money and arms to saddam while he was fighting with iran and the americans and western people did support him with chemical weapons it is the western countries which provokes others to use alternative ways rather then peace deals.
You cant be democratic country while on ther other hand you send smart bombs to kills others.
Aron, Tuesday, 12 May 2009
To Dani (but not only), about destroying all weaponry: read "A piece of wood", by Ray Bradbury ("Farenheit 451").
To DNS Digger: thank for this information.
Twigley, Monday, 11 May 2009
All I know is that if I had to walk down the street, the same street used by my family and friends, and I was within firing range of one of those tanks - I would take it a personal threat, a bullying tactic, directed at me and my loved ones.
It would provoke me to want something done about it.
MK, Sunday, 10 May 2009
They look foreign, so they are probalby just being provacative.
Martin Law, Thursday, 7 May 2009
Am I the only one who as forgotten that Saddam Husain DID have WMD and he DID use them - killing 25,000* Kurds. In my mind we were right to topple Saddam and remove one of the most evil men of our time. I also beleive that WMD could be very easy to hide and just becuase we didn't find them - that's insufficient proof that they never existed. In terms of the tanks, lets no forget that Hitler had them too. Are some of you saying that WWII shouldn't have happened either. And for those of you who still talk about Iraq in terms of invasion - dobn't forget that Saddam did invade Kuwait and did try to invade Iran. More than one million were killed in that one and - by the way - it was brother Muslims killing each other.
I believe that the unforgivable mistake was to not taking advantage of the initial Iraqi good will and consolidate with a massive restructuring package. In my opinion we needed for the lives of average Iraqi's to be massivly improve and had this happened the whole situation would have been viewed differently.
* The number quoted is based on my memory - don't shoot me down for that.
DNS Digger, Thursday, 7 May 2009
This campaign is run by CBS Outdoor, registered via their ISP, Titan Internet.
I suggest we all write to them and ask them who is paying and why. However, given the note below the comments box which says ("I am happy for Time To Consider to use my comment on this site and on London Underground as part of this campaign.") I suspect it is London Underground just playing with your heads in a rather lame copy of an excellent airport advertising campaign by HSBC last year.
olowolaiyemo, Thursday, 7 May 2009
Politics,they say is personal interest submerged in public interest.!weapons are a bad thing because those who give orders for weapons to be used on other countries(politicians)are not capable of telling or hearing the truth. Going to war has always been the interests on politicians who have something to hide or gain and the only way they do it is to lie about (i)llegitimate national interest and national security wraped up with the threat of terrorism.it's so sad.
Shakti, Wednesday, 6 May 2009
All I could consider was the subject itself was effect of human cruelty for his own personal gain. It's now high time for us considering totally ban of those activities that provokes others in order to transform this world into better place so that even when we leave this world our children can still know the value of animal and human life and respect it.
I would like to know, Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Who funds "time to consider"
In anycase, if it is a social experiment, then debate I guess can flow from pictures and few words alone. People set the actual debate, although with vague pictures like tanks, it makes less sense.
Oh well. It would be nice to know more about TIME TO CONSIDER
JoH, Monday, 4 May 2009
Although we want to believe we live in a safe world there will always be people who pose a threat to our safety. As a country we need to prove we aren't an easy target.
Shai, Friday, 1 May 2009
It often comes down to sound diplomacy in order to prevent war and oppression. The best defense for any people is a quality education which teaches not only math, science and literature but also world cultures and a very broad view of history that is not overly nationalist. The best defense is to spend less on military and more on stabilizing factors in other lands. We need to revisit the UN, work with it more closely and give it teeth to deal with the issues at hand. People throughout the world require a dignified quality of life. Give them this and they will oppose war.
Shai, Friday, 1 May 2009
It often comes down to sound diplomacy in order to prevent war and oppression. The best defense for any people is a quality education which teaches not only math, science and literature but also world cultures and a very broad view of history that is not overly nationalist. The best defense is to spend less on military and more on stabilizing factors in other lands. We need to revisit the UN, work with it more closely and give it teeth to deal with the issues at hand. People throughout the world require a dignified quality of life. Give them this and they will oppose war.
Lori, Friday, 1 May 2009
I strongly believe that it is necessary to have a strong military to defend the country.
Russ, Friday, 1 May 2009
I know. Let's not have weapons. Whenever there's a row between countries, put their politicians into a locked room and don't let them out until they've sorted out their problems.
jack, Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Susan, wake up please!
Use your eyes & brain instead of feeding off dangerous propaganda.
cant you tell the difference between truth & a pack of lies?
If you knew your history, you wouldn’t be so ignorant. Your in your comfort zone.
You live in a modern Rome, you cant grasp war! You feel safe where you live. let your government do other wise in other countries. You have no Idea!
Its easy to say Terrorist for any sort of excuse these days...Do you really know the facts?
Snap out of your trans!
Rick, Monday, 27 April 2009
Picture yourself in the land of the occupied people. That's where the tanks are sent. You look outside your window and there are 60-ton tanks tearing up what used to be your streets, going anywhere they want with impunity. Deterrent? I don't think so. Definitely provocative.
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
Darned shame you can't edit posts here isn't it?
Bottom line, there is only one approach to arms that is successful and sensible.
Arm as many law abiding people as possible, and disarm as many criminals as possible.
Anything else is a recipe for eventual disaster.
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
Oh and as for arms, look up the quotes of Cesare Beccaria, the 18th Century Italian criminologist. I can't quote it all here as soemhow the site has a problem with some of the words as being offensive (yet there's no offensive words in the quote).
It contains:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. "
Johnny Reb, Monday, 27 April 2009
David: "Kurt has it exactly right. Look at the abortion of legislation that the current government in the UK has introduced. "
Actually it's the EU. The blizzard of legislation originates with that den of thieves in Brussels.
The quicker the EU collapses the better. Then perhaps we can return to some sanity.
Which Country does everyone think will be the first to leave?
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it is Germany, after the things Angela Merkel has been saying in the last year.
Tony Marchant, Monday, 27 April 2009
THE GOVERMENT ARE THE TERRORISTS
Stuart, Sunday, 26 April 2009
As long as we crave financial security and reasonably cheap petrol and gas supplies, there will be a need to protect our interests, possibly by use of weaponary. Read into that what you will, but i think its something we need to consider next time we complain about (the price of) gas or petrol.
Dan, Saturday, 25 April 2009
I've been wondering, how many of these idealists who will protest against our brave soldiers actually realise they can only protest becuse of our brave soldiers. How many of them would actually have the guts to stand up to oppressoers were they to live in a country such as China, I think I know the answer. NONE! These people are cowards who hide behind 'equaity' and 'human rights' but have no real concept of what it takes to make these things happen.
David, Saturday, 25 April 2009
For those who are for the removal of all weapons, I would ask them that they bother to engage their idealistic brains, if they have two braincells to rub together.
Kurt has it exactly right. Look at the abortion of legislation that the current government in the UK has introduced.
The government were under pressure to act by a media feeding frenzy after the police made a number of failures to remove Thomas Hamilton's firearms licence (they only had about two years warning from their own officers that he was unstable and not fit to have one). The conservative government comissioned an investigation so they could act in an informed way. After the general election the Labour government then ignored most of the findings of that enquiry and instigated a ban on handguns.
They conveniently ignored the fact that if you criminalise guns, then only criminals will have guns. That combined with lax border controls means that gun crime instead of being less after the ban, has soared beyond all recognition since the ban was put in place.
The tank , like a handgun is an inanimate object. Leave it alone and it will sit there. It won't do anything of its own volition, and it won't hurt anyone.
Put someone inside it to operate it and the situation changes somewhat. Therefore it is a deterrent up until the point that it is used against somebody.
To be honest, politicians make wars and the army then has to provide the best outcome for their side using what they have. Perhaps if the politicians had to do the fighting and dying themselves? That wouldn't work in the modern age because the civilised world would then descend into tribal conflict, and all the pacifistic idealist do-gooder clamouring for disarmament will be the first victims of the new despotic regimes that would spring up everywhere.
More later.....
Kurt, Friday, 24 April 2009
In a world of clawless cats the dogs rule.
John A, Friday, 24 April 2009
Anyone that thinks this is a deterrent clearly doesnt know how war works or why they are started
sean, Friday, 24 April 2009
they should drive that tank into the lacs hq !
Keith in Brum, Friday, 24 April 2009
You cannot ban all weapons. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be someone somewhere who keeps a few hidden away "just in case".
I must admit I agree that all weapons should be banned, but I too would keep a gun hidden away "just in case" the other person decides to use HIS "just in case weapon" against me!
Once something has been invented, in can never be un-invented. Lets face it, the way to go is to make bigger and better weapons than your enemy in order to keep the peace.
Nick, Friday, 24 April 2009
Used properly they are a deterrent.
Peacenik, Thursday, 23 April 2009
They look foreign, so they are probalby just being provacative.
Chris, Thursday, 23 April 2009
The development of arms becomes dangerous when mixed with dangerous politcial ambition. If we take the US and Soviets during the Cold War, each nation used the development of arms to implement their dominance around the world. By giving weapons to other countries to fight proxy wars it no longer became about detterence, it was about gaining terretory by force.
Playing toy soildiers is being done by those with selfish intentions to obtain supremacy of somekind. Other countries then react by developing their own weapons to defend themselves. Eventually a war breaks out and the cycle starts again but with more powerful weapons than before.
tm, Tuesday, 21 April 2009
deterrent. how do u stop foreign agressors invading? by having a strong military. thats why dubya didnt invade north korea, they actually have WMD's
Liberty, Monday, 20 April 2009
A lot of these pictures are open to a great deal of interpretation. Are those tanks agressors moving on a foreign country or a defensive deterrant within a country's own territory. Could they be a UN peace keeping force?
the art direction of the skyline is trying to make the picture ominous but without context it should be virtually impossible to answer this one - and i feel the same about the picture of the old man
BOB, Friday, 17 April 2009
It really depends how its used. If its used by George Bush now Obama then its Provocation
Fred Barboo, Friday, 17 April 2009
How is a tank going to prevent terrorism?
Hear, hear Dani.
Dani, Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Destroy all weaponry - it would be like a world of clawless cats!
Susan, Wednesday, 15 April 2009
In this mad world we need to protect ourselves from terrorist activity. Using it is a different matter altogether.
Add a Comment