The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Page:
Light wrote:
> But none of the anti-war lobby were for leaving Hussein in power.
You're not really reading what anyone had typed, are you? Love the use of "your" in that thread, they way it relates to absolutely nothing mentioned by anyone between your opener and that post.
> But none of the anti-war lobby were for leaving Hussein in power.
You're not really reading what anyone had typed, are you? Love the use of "your" in that thread, they way it relates to absolutely nothing mentioned by anyone between your opener and that post.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Love the
> use of "your" in that thread
Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the forum>thread>post muddles :)
> Love the
> use of "your" in that thread
Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the forum>thread>post muddles :)
Dr Gonzo wrote:
>
> Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the
> forum>thread>post muddles :)
Mu ha ha ha haaa! That'll learn ya.
But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war that hasn't been rebutted already. Which is fair enough, because aside from "It's probably about oil", no-one has.
>
> Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the
> forum>thread>post muddles :)
Mu ha ha ha haaa! That'll learn ya.
But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war that hasn't been rebutted already. Which is fair enough, because aside from "It's probably about oil", no-one has.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of
> organising the practicalities of international politics. When they
> fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do
> rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the
> balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world
> trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to
> gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem more than a little bit upside-down?
Extend this logic further. You have the UN taking its own course, with the majority of the nations on Earth as members, yet one or two nations are acting outside the authority of the UN, bullying and threatening other countries just because they don't agree with the weapons or company they keep, or maybe even just because one of their allies in the region needs to feel a little less threatened. Who then is the 'rogue state'?
> Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of
> organising the practicalities of international politics. When they
> fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do
> rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the
> balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world
> trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to
> gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem more than a little bit upside-down?
Extend this logic further. You have the UN taking its own course, with the majority of the nations on Earth as members, yet one or two nations are acting outside the authority of the UN, bullying and threatening other countries just because they don't agree with the weapons or company they keep, or maybe even just because one of their allies in the region needs to feel a little less threatened. Who then is the 'rogue state'?
Miserableman wrote:
> Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved
> on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand
> claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying
> UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
>
Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war. That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of fact.
> Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved
> on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand
> claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying
> UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
>
Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war. That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of fact.
Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying, but I believe I agree with the rest of the post. The US and imo particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years, then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying, but I believe I agree with the rest of the post. The US and imo particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years, then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Yup; not a single reason for this war rings true. Yet still people say "It can't be about the oil". This is despite the fact that it is the only reason with sufficient evidence in support of it.
I've turned pro-war.
Go war, yeah!
Seriously though, once it kicked off, the worst thing that could have happened for the Iraqi people was for it to stop. It would have been just like what happened 12 years ago when we last pulled out, leaving all those that tried to rise up against Saddam to die.
I didn't think it should have started in the first reason, simply because Saddam would never have used WOMD, he had nothing to gain from it.
Anyway, shouldn't we have the military back outside airports and the like again now? Those Syrians could attack us at any moment.
Right now I'm quaking (not quacking) in my boots, worried about those nasty Syrians. I hope Mr Bush and Mr Blair set my fears at rest by bombing them.
Don't hampsters come from Syria?
Should I have mine put down, he could be a spy....?
Go war, yeah!
Seriously though, once it kicked off, the worst thing that could have happened for the Iraqi people was for it to stop. It would have been just like what happened 12 years ago when we last pulled out, leaving all those that tried to rise up against Saddam to die.
I didn't think it should have started in the first reason, simply because Saddam would never have used WOMD, he had nothing to gain from it.
Anyway, shouldn't we have the military back outside airports and the like again now? Those Syrians could attack us at any moment.
Right now I'm quaking (not quacking) in my boots, worried about those nasty Syrians. I hope Mr Bush and Mr Blair set my fears at rest by bombing them.
Don't hampsters come from Syria?
Should I have mine put down, he could be a spy....?
Miserableman wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for
> war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
>
>
> I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying,
> but I believe I agree with the rest of the post.
Sorry, let me rephrase then, maybe that helps. :)
I don't believe you can say with any great conviction that the UK/US have defied the UN or its authority when its the UN in the first place that has given them a legal justification. The UN declared Iraq in breach of a resolution that authorised force, nobody else and certainly not the US/UK on their own.
> The US and imo
> particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and
> political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were
> scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years,
> then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're
> liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a
> light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Even though you seem to be anti-war where as I'm pro-war this is one point I can agree with. The way they've behaved really does quite baffle me. They really have put their case across very poorly. There seems to be some unwritten rule in politics, only remember whats happened this week.
They take each "excuse" and concentrate on it to the exclusion of everything else. This thing about terrorism is pretty good example. The US has been accusing Iraq of sponsoring terrorism for the past 15 years or so. Just browsing the net, they even have some fairly convincing arguments supporting it, certainly better anything they've come up with recently. Even resolution 1441 said Iraq wasn't fulfilling its obligations as regards to terrorism. Yet they arrest Abu Abbas and declare "We've linked Iraq to terrorism" as though they've never done it before and Iraq and terrorism is a new thing.
On the other hand, picking up on what you've just written there. Does each "excuse" need to stand up on its own? Does there need to be 1 definitive reason to do it? You can possibly argue this is a case where the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (hope you get what I mean).
> Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for
> war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
>
>
> I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying,
> but I believe I agree with the rest of the post.
Sorry, let me rephrase then, maybe that helps. :)
I don't believe you can say with any great conviction that the UK/US have defied the UN or its authority when its the UN in the first place that has given them a legal justification. The UN declared Iraq in breach of a resolution that authorised force, nobody else and certainly not the US/UK on their own.
> The US and imo
> particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and
> political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were
> scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years,
> then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're
> liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a
> light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Even though you seem to be anti-war where as I'm pro-war this is one point I can agree with. The way they've behaved really does quite baffle me. They really have put their case across very poorly. There seems to be some unwritten rule in politics, only remember whats happened this week.
They take each "excuse" and concentrate on it to the exclusion of everything else. This thing about terrorism is pretty good example. The US has been accusing Iraq of sponsoring terrorism for the past 15 years or so. Just browsing the net, they even have some fairly convincing arguments supporting it, certainly better anything they've come up with recently. Even resolution 1441 said Iraq wasn't fulfilling its obligations as regards to terrorism. Yet they arrest Abu Abbas and declare "We've linked Iraq to terrorism" as though they've never done it before and Iraq and terrorism is a new thing.
On the other hand, picking up on what you've just written there. Does each "excuse" need to stand up on its own? Does there need to be 1 definitive reason to do it? You can possibly argue this is a case where the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (hope you get what I mean).
Light wrote:
> But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war
> that hasn't been rebutted already.
From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
You can't rebutt an opinion anyway. Disagreeing doesn't prove whether it's wrong or right because these aren't things you can be wrong or right about.
> But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war
> that hasn't been rebutted already.
From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
You can't rebutt an opinion anyway. Disagreeing doesn't prove whether it's wrong or right because these aren't things you can be wrong or right about.
Page: