The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
Page:
in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
bon bon wrote:
> in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the
> good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we
> mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it
> becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
Most wars i guess. But some are for religous reasons or 9/11 attack by bin laden (due to the belief of American culture killing off arabian or foregin cultures). War was the fastest way for a country to gain wealth and technology and power. But the UN should attempt more in trying to stop the violence of countries.
> now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed
> nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using
> science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of
> snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that
> these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of
> devil.
War culture (as in training?) is practiced to defend one self. Hence why special forces and soldiers are made incase of a war breaks out in their country or their country needs law and order. but war culture to attack all only supermerousy is wrong (maybe racist as well)
Whiles Building better weapons was to maintain safety such as the atomic bomb. To save lives of the us soldiers, they dropped them and to use it as a bargaining chip with stalin. But i wonder if super or better weapons scare people into holding back if they don't use them?. Don't forget we trade more then just weapons. China for example we could buy their cheap mas produced toys or chile for their fruit. But truthfully, if theres a market for them, its up to the country if they want to buy them or not.
> the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go
> to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the
> arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which
> are against social justice and global environment.
In the west, this isn't true because we have a democracy and provided we have enough support against the war, theres a chance for it to stop. check vietnam for example. But dictators in non democratic countries couldn't care less what happens to its people as they have control over them. But depends how war is commenced, to defend a persons freedom like in poland against the nazis or to invade it takes 2 to start a war. Whether the war is good or not depends on where you stand in the conflict.
> it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of
> the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way
> to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus
> demolishing culture of other people and society.
This is about iraq yeah? well, the war was dodgy. Yes its nice to over throw saddam and all but no, its not really worth it because he wasn't a threat in the first place. Also if you wanted a stable country then you need to rebuild it fast. Also the oil for food policy is a bit dodgy.
> in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the
> good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we
> mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it
> becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
Most wars i guess. But some are for religous reasons or 9/11 attack by bin laden (due to the belief of American culture killing off arabian or foregin cultures). War was the fastest way for a country to gain wealth and technology and power. But the UN should attempt more in trying to stop the violence of countries.
> now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed
> nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using
> science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of
> snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that
> these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of
> devil.
War culture (as in training?) is practiced to defend one self. Hence why special forces and soldiers are made incase of a war breaks out in their country or their country needs law and order. but war culture to attack all only supermerousy is wrong (maybe racist as well)
Whiles Building better weapons was to maintain safety such as the atomic bomb. To save lives of the us soldiers, they dropped them and to use it as a bargaining chip with stalin. But i wonder if super or better weapons scare people into holding back if they don't use them?. Don't forget we trade more then just weapons. China for example we could buy their cheap mas produced toys or chile for their fruit. But truthfully, if theres a market for them, its up to the country if they want to buy them or not.
> the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go
> to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the
> arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which
> are against social justice and global environment.
In the west, this isn't true because we have a democracy and provided we have enough support against the war, theres a chance for it to stop. check vietnam for example. But dictators in non democratic countries couldn't care less what happens to its people as they have control over them. But depends how war is commenced, to defend a persons freedom like in poland against the nazis or to invade it takes 2 to start a war. Whether the war is good or not depends on where you stand in the conflict.
> it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of
> the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way
> to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus
> demolishing culture of other people and society.
This is about iraq yeah? well, the war was dodgy. Yes its nice to over throw saddam and all but no, its not really worth it because he wasn't a threat in the first place. Also if you wanted a stable country then you need to rebuild it fast. Also the oil for food policy is a bit dodgy.
bon bon wrote:
> in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the
> good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we
> mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it
> becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
War is not always about jealousy, sure, it is sometimes, like Iraq invading Kuwait. However, take the Bulkans, countries such as the US, UK and others went to war their, and that wasn't about jealousy.
> now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed
> nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using
> science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of
> snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that
> these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of
> devil.
I wouldn't call a war lord the son of Satan. Sure, what they do is wrong, but their may be other reasons for the wars they rage. I'm not saying they are good reasons, but they may not be solely about jealousy.
> the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go
> to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the
> arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which
> are against social justice and global environment.
Are you still talking about the War lord type person here, or rulers who advocate war in general. If you are talking about rulers that take their nation to war, perhaps you should look at the Second World War. Places such as England and France didn't want War, in fact they went out of their way to avoid it, perhaps costing more lives, but thats another discussion. Anyway, they didn't want war, but it was unavoidable. They wern't jealouse of what Hitler had, but he had to be stopped.
> it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of
> the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way
> to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus
> demolishing culture of other people and society.
Again, look at the Bulkans. The west went to war their, and although their is a lot of work to be done, the war made things better their.
You seems to think that all wars are about jealousy. This is not so.
Granted, some wars are, however, some wars are unavoidable. And although the actual wars are horrible, their effects can be of a benificial nature.
> in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the
> good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we
> mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it
> becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
War is not always about jealousy, sure, it is sometimes, like Iraq invading Kuwait. However, take the Bulkans, countries such as the US, UK and others went to war their, and that wasn't about jealousy.
> now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed
> nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using
> science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of
> snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that
> these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of
> devil.
I wouldn't call a war lord the son of Satan. Sure, what they do is wrong, but their may be other reasons for the wars they rage. I'm not saying they are good reasons, but they may not be solely about jealousy.
> the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go
> to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the
> arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which
> are against social justice and global environment.
Are you still talking about the War lord type person here, or rulers who advocate war in general. If you are talking about rulers that take their nation to war, perhaps you should look at the Second World War. Places such as England and France didn't want War, in fact they went out of their way to avoid it, perhaps costing more lives, but thats another discussion. Anyway, they didn't want war, but it was unavoidable. They wern't jealouse of what Hitler had, but he had to be stopped.
> it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of
> the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way
> to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus
> demolishing culture of other people and society.
Again, look at the Bulkans. The west went to war their, and although their is a lot of work to be done, the war made things better their.
You seems to think that all wars are about jealousy. This is not so.
Granted, some wars are, however, some wars are unavoidable. And although the actual wars are horrible, their effects can be of a benificial nature.
spoonbeast wrote:
> This is about iraq yeah? well, the war was dodgy. Yes its nice to
> over throw saddam and all but no, its not really worth it because he
> wasn't a threat in the first place. Also if you wanted a stable
> country then you need to rebuild it fast. Also the oil for food
> policy is a bit dodgy.
He wasn't a threat. Well, perhaps not to us, but to his own people he was.
Also, you don't need to rebuild fast for a stable country. It took decades to rebuild Germany, and their ok. Rapid re-building helps, but sometimes just isn't possible. In Iraq, it is going as quickly as possible, but to most Iraqi's, this isn't fast enough, but there is nothing that can be done.
And why is the oil for food program a bit dodgy. Is was a good idea, until Saddam started using it to his own ends. So the program was fine, just Saddam that wasn't.
And on the war in general, and the grounds for it.
Well, the US guy in charge in Iraq said the other day,
200 years down the line, which will Historians view as more important, the liberation of 25 Million people, or the whole WMD issue? I thing they will find the liberation of a country outweights the WMD stuff.
> This is about iraq yeah? well, the war was dodgy. Yes its nice to
> over throw saddam and all but no, its not really worth it because he
> wasn't a threat in the first place. Also if you wanted a stable
> country then you need to rebuild it fast. Also the oil for food
> policy is a bit dodgy.
He wasn't a threat. Well, perhaps not to us, but to his own people he was.
Also, you don't need to rebuild fast for a stable country. It took decades to rebuild Germany, and their ok. Rapid re-building helps, but sometimes just isn't possible. In Iraq, it is going as quickly as possible, but to most Iraqi's, this isn't fast enough, but there is nothing that can be done.
And why is the oil for food program a bit dodgy. Is was a good idea, until Saddam started using it to his own ends. So the program was fine, just Saddam that wasn't.
And on the war in general, and the grounds for it.
Well, the US guy in charge in Iraq said the other day,
200 years down the line, which will Historians view as more important, the liberation of 25 Million people, or the whole WMD issue? I thing they will find the liberation of a country outweights the WMD stuff.
Skarra wrote:
> He wasn't a threat. Well, perhaps not to us, but to his own people he
> was.
...and yet you still haven't said one peep about the many many western supported governments who are a threat to their own people...
>
> Also, you don't need to rebuild fast for a stable country. It took
> decades to rebuild Germany, and their ok. Rapid re-building helps,
> but sometimes just isn't possible. In Iraq, it is going as quickly as
> possible, but to most Iraqi's, this isn't fast enough, but there is
> nothing that can be done.
...except that Iraq isn't a stable country, is it? Germany was a thoroughly industrialised nation that was rebuilt with very little trouble. There were no terrorists killing allied and soviet soldiers at the rate of one a day, were there?
>
> And why is the oil for food program a bit dodgy. Is was a good idea,
> until Saddam started using it to his own ends. So the program was
> fine, just Saddam that wasn't.
It's dodgy because even though we all knew what it was actually being used for, we and the US still bought the oil and so we put the money directly into Saddam's pockets. Kinda hypocritical really.
>
> And on the war in general, and the grounds for it.
>
> Well, the US guy in charge in Iraq said the other day,
> 200 years down the line, which will Historians view as more
> important, the liberation of 25 Million people, or the whole WMD
> issue? I thing they will find the liberation of a country outweights
> the WMD stuff.
Will they indeed? I've pointed this out to you before and you've declined to address it, so I'll raise the issue again;
Is Iraq liberated? It's a few months after the end of the war (though the killings go on); don't you think it's premature to say that the people of Iraq are free?
As to your attempt to dismiss the lies told by government in order to justify a war, well looking at past leaders who have been caught out in lies (Eden, Wilson, Nixon), history has pretty much villified them.
Finally, 200 years down the line is one thing; what about now? You're happy to be lied to and manipulated as long as the news keeps telling you that, despite the constant stream of deaths, a country has been 'liberated'?
> He wasn't a threat. Well, perhaps not to us, but to his own people he
> was.
...and yet you still haven't said one peep about the many many western supported governments who are a threat to their own people...
>
> Also, you don't need to rebuild fast for a stable country. It took
> decades to rebuild Germany, and their ok. Rapid re-building helps,
> but sometimes just isn't possible. In Iraq, it is going as quickly as
> possible, but to most Iraqi's, this isn't fast enough, but there is
> nothing that can be done.
...except that Iraq isn't a stable country, is it? Germany was a thoroughly industrialised nation that was rebuilt with very little trouble. There were no terrorists killing allied and soviet soldiers at the rate of one a day, were there?
>
> And why is the oil for food program a bit dodgy. Is was a good idea,
> until Saddam started using it to his own ends. So the program was
> fine, just Saddam that wasn't.
It's dodgy because even though we all knew what it was actually being used for, we and the US still bought the oil and so we put the money directly into Saddam's pockets. Kinda hypocritical really.
>
> And on the war in general, and the grounds for it.
>
> Well, the US guy in charge in Iraq said the other day,
> 200 years down the line, which will Historians view as more
> important, the liberation of 25 Million people, or the whole WMD
> issue? I thing they will find the liberation of a country outweights
> the WMD stuff.
Will they indeed? I've pointed this out to you before and you've declined to address it, so I'll raise the issue again;
Is Iraq liberated? It's a few months after the end of the war (though the killings go on); don't you think it's premature to say that the people of Iraq are free?
As to your attempt to dismiss the lies told by government in order to justify a war, well looking at past leaders who have been caught out in lies (Eden, Wilson, Nixon), history has pretty much villified them.
Finally, 200 years down the line is one thing; what about now? You're happy to be lied to and manipulated as long as the news keeps telling you that, despite the constant stream of deaths, a country has been 'liberated'?
Hmm...y'know, looking at the original post I find myself wondering why the board is being plagued with empty headed godbotherers who type their poorly understood slogans with nary a thought in their head. Is it the time of the year or something?
Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when the infastructure they need is all in place.
A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many, many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used as ammo-dumps etc...
Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things in Iraq now.
The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in their country.
And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now, or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like the things i said, and more.
I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good. However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many, many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used as ammo-dumps etc...
Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things in Iraq now.
The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in their country.
And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now, or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like the things i said, and more.
I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good. However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
War is much more than an expression of jealousy, it's an expression of a primitive culture with backward intelligence. Stupid humans. I don't want to be one.
Skarra wrote:
> Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when
> the infastructure they need is all in place.
I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted for their free-spirited attitude.
>
> A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the
> markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now
> more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many,
> many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used
> as ammo-dumps etc...
Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food, water, power...
>
> Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the
> situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the
> examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things
> in Iraq now.
Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather hollow.
>
> The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small
> number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls
> in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the
> co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in
> their country.
Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000 involved.
Who is saying this in Basra? Where do you get that info from? I ask cos I was listening to a Radio 4 special on Iraq some months ago. One man summed up the mood of the people of (I think) Baghdad; "If the Prophet Mohammed himself invaded my country, I would fight him. This is my land. Saddam has almost destroyed it, and I won't let the Americans finish the job".
Finally, how come you're so wilfully blind to the fact that the people benefitting most from this war are the rich industrialists of the US and UK? You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the US government (which, as I keep reminding you, said it wouldn't go to war if it was purely for the Iraqi people. So why DID they go to war?) is only there for the money, and balls to the people.
>
> And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now,
> or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on
> the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like
> the things i said, and more.
Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the coalition out of their country.
>
> I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good.
> However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to
> read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war? Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure the government would.
Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no support for them.
> Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when
> the infastructure they need is all in place.
I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted for their free-spirited attitude.
>
> A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the
> markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now
> more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many,
> many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used
> as ammo-dumps etc...
Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food, water, power...
>
> Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the
> situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the
> examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things
> in Iraq now.
Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather hollow.
>
> The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small
> number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls
> in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the
> co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in
> their country.
Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000 involved.
Who is saying this in Basra? Where do you get that info from? I ask cos I was listening to a Radio 4 special on Iraq some months ago. One man summed up the mood of the people of (I think) Baghdad; "If the Prophet Mohammed himself invaded my country, I would fight him. This is my land. Saddam has almost destroyed it, and I won't let the Americans finish the job".
Finally, how come you're so wilfully blind to the fact that the people benefitting most from this war are the rich industrialists of the US and UK? You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the US government (which, as I keep reminding you, said it wouldn't go to war if it was purely for the Iraqi people. So why DID they go to war?) is only there for the money, and balls to the people.
>
> And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now,
> or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on
> the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like
> the things i said, and more.
Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the coalition out of their country.
>
> I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good.
> However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to
> read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war? Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure the government would.
Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no support for them.
Light wrote:
> I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming
> that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the
> clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather
> presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted
> for their free-spirited attitude.
Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
> Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the
> wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
> More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the
> infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food,
> water, power...
Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting strangly, and this is not the case.
The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit, doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok, apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it is sabotaged.
> Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things
> in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your
> government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as
> some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in
> celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as
> you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how
> many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the
> suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't
> matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather
> hollow.
You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he wasn't lying to us.
> Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in
> all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to
> our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise
> that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the
> coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000
> involved.
Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong, freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
> Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I
> suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the
> coalition out of their country.
Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70% of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
> The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be
> the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board
> good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting
> what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war?
> Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure
> the government would.
Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative. Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
> I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming
> that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the
> clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather
> presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted
> for their free-spirited attitude.
Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
> Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the
> wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
> More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the
> infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food,
> water, power...
Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting strangly, and this is not the case.
The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit, doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok, apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it is sabotaged.
> Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things
> in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your
> government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as
> some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in
> celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as
> you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how
> many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the
> suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't
> matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather
> hollow.
You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he wasn't lying to us.
> Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in
> all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to
> our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise
> that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the
> coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000
> involved.
Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong, freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
> Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I
> suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the
> coalition out of their country.
Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70% of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
> The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be
> the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board
> good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting
> what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war?
> Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure
> the government would.
Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative. Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
Page: