The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq and in my opinion they didn’t need to be found.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> I thought that after WW 2, the Jews needed somewhere of their own to
> live. So, the UN put them in Palistinian land. Please, somebody tell
> me if all that is wrong.
In ancient times Isreal was an independant kingdom populated by a semitic peoples, the Jews. They developed the first cohesive monothestic religion. Therefore they saw only their God as real and all the other Gods of nations such as Babylon or Egypt as fake, which pi_sed of the said powers. But Isreal was mainly attacked due to political reasons, starting when the Kingdom of Isreal declared war of Babylon, a war that went badly and ended up with the Jews subdugation. Then they were let back but the Assyrians had a pop at them then the Persians. By the 1st century BC a new power; Imperial Rome was on the scene and after major Jewish/Isreali rebellions they were evicted. They mostly went to Europe and northen Africa and developed a cohesive culture but were constantly persecuted for not fitting in by the nearest power. To cut a long story short they were evicted by the Romans from Isreal, which was their God given land according to the Bible, and went around Europe generally getting persecuted but generally being culturally powerful. We all know what Hitler thought of them, and after the holocaust the flooded back to Isreal. There had been a growing Zionist movement to ressurect Isreal since the 1920s and ealier. There was a small minor problem...the Palestinians had been living there for a good few thousand years since the Jews had gone. Naturally they didn't appreciate having their land stolen and being killed. Isreal had considerable sympathy after almost being wiped out by the Nazi's and were able to establish Isreal, becoming official after the British withdrawal in 1947 or maybe 1948 I don't remember. The British had tried to regulate this but with the collapse of British power and Americas pro-Isreal stance Isreal was there to stay. From the 1960s in particular after several Arab wars failed to oust Isreal terrorist tactics began to be used.
A very basic summary of events silent thunder but that is the jist. Anyway. enough thread jacking, back to Iraq/Assyria/Kurdistan/United States colony/Sunnia Triangle etc.
> I thought that after WW 2, the Jews needed somewhere of their own to
> live. So, the UN put them in Palistinian land. Please, somebody tell
> me if all that is wrong.
In ancient times Isreal was an independant kingdom populated by a semitic peoples, the Jews. They developed the first cohesive monothestic religion. Therefore they saw only their God as real and all the other Gods of nations such as Babylon or Egypt as fake, which pi_sed of the said powers. But Isreal was mainly attacked due to political reasons, starting when the Kingdom of Isreal declared war of Babylon, a war that went badly and ended up with the Jews subdugation. Then they were let back but the Assyrians had a pop at them then the Persians. By the 1st century BC a new power; Imperial Rome was on the scene and after major Jewish/Isreali rebellions they were evicted. They mostly went to Europe and northen Africa and developed a cohesive culture but were constantly persecuted for not fitting in by the nearest power. To cut a long story short they were evicted by the Romans from Isreal, which was their God given land according to the Bible, and went around Europe generally getting persecuted but generally being culturally powerful. We all know what Hitler thought of them, and after the holocaust the flooded back to Isreal. There had been a growing Zionist movement to ressurect Isreal since the 1920s and ealier. There was a small minor problem...the Palestinians had been living there for a good few thousand years since the Jews had gone. Naturally they didn't appreciate having their land stolen and being killed. Isreal had considerable sympathy after almost being wiped out by the Nazi's and were able to establish Isreal, becoming official after the British withdrawal in 1947 or maybe 1948 I don't remember. The British had tried to regulate this but with the collapse of British power and Americas pro-Isreal stance Isreal was there to stay. From the 1960s in particular after several Arab wars failed to oust Isreal terrorist tactics began to be used.
A very basic summary of events silent thunder but that is the jist. Anyway. enough thread jacking, back to Iraq/Assyria/Kurdistan/United States colony/Sunnia Triangle etc.
Silent Thunder breaks a window:
'Hitler did it'
;^D
'Hitler did it'
;^D
Skarra wrote:
> I thought that after WW 2, the Jews needed somewhere of their own to
> live. So, the UN put them in Palistinian land. Please, somebody tell
> me if all that is wrong.
Nah, that's broadly what happened, though it was mainly the UK who made this happen.
Silent Thunder, you MUST be joking, right?
> I thought that after WW 2, the Jews needed somewhere of their own to
> live. So, the UN put them in Palistinian land. Please, somebody tell
> me if all that is wrong.
Nah, that's broadly what happened, though it was mainly the UK who made this happen.
Silent Thunder, you MUST be joking, right?
I thought that after WW 2, the Jews needed somewhere of their own to live. So, the UN put them in Palistinian land. Please, somebody tell me if all that is wrong.
Silën† Thundêr ™ wrote:
> During the second world war Hitler was agaisnt the Jews and so he
> punished them. At this time the Jews owned the land known as Israel,
> but during the war they were taken of the land and tortured and
> punished for being different. So the land was open and the
> Palestinians moved in and took the land. When the war was over and
> the Jews returned home to Israel the land was taken, of course they
> were not to happy and so this is still what is happening today.
Your being sarcastic are you not? For the love of all that is good in the world tell me you don't really believe that?
> During the second world war Hitler was agaisnt the Jews and so he
> punished them. At this time the Jews owned the land known as Israel,
> but during the war they were taken of the land and tortured and
> punished for being different. So the land was open and the
> Palestinians moved in and took the land. When the war was over and
> the Jews returned home to Israel the land was taken, of course they
> were not to happy and so this is still what is happening today.
Your being sarcastic are you not? For the love of all that is good in the world tell me you don't really believe that?
Skarra, Dr Duck and Insane Bartender all said about the Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. And who fault is it that these attacks are happening today? Not the countries themselves, nor by any one who is living today, but Hitler. I am sure you all no why he is to blame, but if you dont I will say:
During the second world war Hitler was agaisnt the Jews and so he punished them. At this time the Jews owned the land known as Israel, but during the war they were taken of the land and tortured and punished for being different. So the land was open and the Palestinians moved in and took the land. When the war was over and the Jews returned home to Israel the land was taken, of course they were not to happy and so this is still what is happening today.
Well at least Saddam cant have a chance ever to effect the world in this way even after he is dead, but has he already effected it enough? Well he has a lot of "supporters" who are anti USA and may even attack them in the future so he has done that damage already. Whats next?
During the second world war Hitler was agaisnt the Jews and so he punished them. At this time the Jews owned the land known as Israel, but during the war they were taken of the land and tortured and punished for being different. So the land was open and the Palestinians moved in and took the land. When the war was over and the Jews returned home to Israel the land was taken, of course they were not to happy and so this is still what is happening today.
Well at least Saddam cant have a chance ever to effect the world in this way even after he is dead, but has he already effected it enough? Well he has a lot of "supporters" who are anti USA and may even attack them in the future so he has done that damage already. Whats next?
saddam was evil (and still is, even if he's not in power) so the war was worth it to get him the **** out!
Given that the Air Force reserves are already refusing to kill any more Palestinians at the governments request, it looks to me more like the Israeli government is persecuting the Palestinians for their own agenda, rather than in retaliation to acts of terrorism waged against them (due to the Palestinians having their country stolen I would imagine).
Question:
If the Palestinian suicide bombings stopped, do you think:
i) Isreali forces would volunatrily and promptly stop killing Palestinians
ii) Building would cease on the wall, and Palestinian land taken by the wall would be relinquished
iii) The Israeli government would cut a 'fair' deal for land and statehood with the Palestinians
iv) The international community, America included, would condemn any action by Israeli forces to kill / take land from Palestinians?
If any of that sounded rhetorical, it genuinely wasn't meant to be, I'm just interested in peoples' opinions.
If the Palestinian suicide bombings stopped, do you think:
i) Isreali forces would volunatrily and promptly stop killing Palestinians
ii) Building would cease on the wall, and Palestinian land taken by the wall would be relinquished
iii) The Israeli government would cut a 'fair' deal for land and statehood with the Palestinians
iv) The international community, America included, would condemn any action by Israeli forces to kill / take land from Palestinians?
If any of that sounded rhetorical, it genuinely wasn't meant to be, I'm just interested in peoples' opinions.
Light wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
>
>
> Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles
> that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with
> warheads.
>
> True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get
> the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or
> do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
Israel is a completely different situation. On the one hand, i think some of the things they do is all wrong, but on the other hand, if my nation was under threat, and indeed under attack, from Suicide Bombers every hour of every day, well, i might do doing the same kind of things.
Perhaps we should do like Attcus said in To Kill A Mockingbird, and look at it from the Israeli point of view. Sure, the Palistinians are hard done by, by so are the Israeli's. It all depends on your point of view.
> Skarra wrote:
>
>
> Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles
> that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with
> warheads.
>
> True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get
> the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or
> do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
Israel is a completely different situation. On the one hand, i think some of the things they do is all wrong, but on the other hand, if my nation was under threat, and indeed under attack, from Suicide Bombers every hour of every day, well, i might do doing the same kind of things.
Perhaps we should do like Attcus said in To Kill A Mockingbird, and look at it from the Israeli point of view. Sure, the Palistinians are hard done by, by so are the Israeli's. It all depends on your point of view.
Page: