The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That Colin Powell will be presenting conclusive evidence that Iraq is misleading weapons inspectors. Apparently.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
Page:
That Colin Powell will be presenting conclusive evidence that Iraq is misleading weapons inspectors. Apparently.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
This war for oil thing is getting pretty repetitive isn't it ? Is that the best you can do ? How about saying Bush wants to use the whole country as one big ranch.....it's equally as stupid. And Powell just proved Al Queda links so....you're stupid. And I don't really give a toss about any big long sarcastic e.t.c reply you make because at this point, anyone who says action against Iraq is not necessary quite frankly is ignoring the obvious.
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
Tell me, do you complain about hearing about the holocaust as well because it's too repetitive?
The reason it keeps coming up is because Dubya is essentially invading a sovereign state for their oil, NOT for some high minded idea of human rights (because otherwise Israel would be screwed) and NOT because of their weapons of mass destruction (Did you see that North Korea today threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US? When did Iraq do that exactly?).
Still, this is a first; I've never seen someone try to dismiss a legitimate concern by saying that, because everyone is pointing it out it must therefore be irrelevant.
The reason it keeps coming up is because Dubya is essentially invading a sovereign state for their oil, NOT for some high minded idea of human rights (because otherwise Israel would be screwed) and NOT because of their weapons of mass destruction (Did you see that North Korea today threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US? When did Iraq do that exactly?).
Still, this is a first; I've never seen someone try to dismiss a legitimate concern by saying that, because everyone is pointing it out it must therefore be irrelevant.
Light wrote:
> Did you see that North Korea today threatened a pre-emptive
> nuclear strike against the US?
I read it a different way on CNN.com. N.Korea were saying that if the U.S. did a pre-emptive strike on them it would start a full-scale war on the Korean Peninsula.
> Did you see that North Korea today threatened a pre-emptive
> nuclear strike against the US?
I read it a different way on CNN.com. N.Korea were saying that if the U.S. did a pre-emptive strike on them it would start a full-scale war on the Korean Peninsula.
BBC News:
North Korea has warned the United States that any decision to send more troops to the region could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces.
US officials said on Tuesday that Washington was considering strengthening its military forces in the Pacific Ocean as a deterrent against North Korea.
--
This translates into "You send soldiers, we'll nuke you back to Minutemen days"
North Korea has warned the United States that any decision to send more troops to the region could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces.
US officials said on Tuesday that Washington was considering strengthening its military forces in the Pacific Ocean as a deterrent against North Korea.
--
This translates into "You send soldiers, we'll nuke you back to Minutemen days"
Ruddy reporters. We should send Snuggly out there dressed as Kate Aide in a search for the truth.
I don't get it anyway. What's in Korea that the U.S. could want in the first place. Why are they still in South Korea? Is this a Colonel Saunders thing?
Bush has backed himself into a corner.
He's been so vocal about Hussein because of "weapons of mass destruction", that when the world said "Korea has nuclear weapons now and they're a lot bigger than Iraq", Bush was all "Yeah, they're next on the list for talks"
Korea's response?
"Any attempt to impose sanctions will be considered an act of war"
United States backs down and decides to move troops in instead to "monitor"
Korea's response?
"Send troops here and we'll destroy you"
Basically, The States ain't gonna take on North Korea because they dont stand a chance. They only like to tell small countries that present zero threat what to do.
Hence Iraq is a bad man country yet India and Pakistan are not their problem.
It's funny to watch
He's been so vocal about Hussein because of "weapons of mass destruction", that when the world said "Korea has nuclear weapons now and they're a lot bigger than Iraq", Bush was all "Yeah, they're next on the list for talks"
Korea's response?
"Any attempt to impose sanctions will be considered an act of war"
United States backs down and decides to move troops in instead to "monitor"
Korea's response?
"Send troops here and we'll destroy you"
Basically, The States ain't gonna take on North Korea because they dont stand a chance. They only like to tell small countries that present zero threat what to do.
Hence Iraq is a bad man country yet India and Pakistan are not their problem.
It's funny to watch
But, doesn't the UK have nuclear weapons too? Does that mean we get to talk with Bush as well later on? Or are we further down his list of 'things to do'?
Any day now, China will join forces with N Korea and start laughing heartily at the possibility of USA trying to take them on...
Page: