The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I'm surprised to see there's not loads of topics about this already (sorry if there already is one - couldnt find one) but I think it's a pretty important issue.
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
Page:
We've hardly made Iraq any better, have we?
On a non-political note to this: I've heard people have watched that on the internet/downloaded it.
Why? Why the hell would you want to see that? It's a prurient leering that marks you as a ghoul with zero interest in the matter except to look at it and be shocked/be cool etc.
Now if I'm wrong, forgive me, but Paradox - it seems to me from you describing it in such detail that you're one of these clowns that has downloaded it. I don't understand why, nor do I care to be honest.
As for the "concern" being shown by Britain over the last remaining hostage? Blair on Tuesday did what? Thaaaat's right, he helped launch a virgin train with Richard Branson, had the Iraq Prime Minister for tea and did nothing. That we know of, sure. But if I was a family member of this hostage, I'd be furious to see Blair grinning inanely next to Branson at a train station.
Where is your compassion Blair? Your sense of duty and honour?
You caused this mess, don't you bloody take photo-ops when a "civil engineer" is facing execution.
But, for me, that sums it up. Blair sent troops over with little thought for what would happen.
And as tragic as this hostage thing is, why is it getting such saturated media coverage? A bomb went of killing 11 and injuring almost 100 in a marketplace on Tuesday (I think?), yet we saw nothing.
Because it was just a bunch of Arabs. Nevermind they are just as innocent as these 3 Westerners.
But we, or at least our media, doesn't give a single solitary damn if it's brownskins being killed. But as soon as a nice, "one of us" Anglo-Saxons is hurt? Front Page.
Why? Could it possibly be to strengthen public opinion against "terrorists" operating there, to demonise the region and to possibly try to halt the still-increasing "What the hell was the war for?" voices?
"Well if you question, then you clearly support these terrorists"
Please, that's as dumb as when Belldandy/The Media said if you opposed the original invasion then you were pro-Saddam.
Who, I'd like to point out, is still invisible and not being presented to anybody for interviews at all - until the elections in November. Mark my words, when Bush needs the support for his already agreed 2nd term, Hussain will be wheeled out and paraded as a spoil of war and not what he is - a former ally and recepient of Western aid/training/arms/funding/support.
It sucks that 2 Americans are dead and this English guy is facing that - it shouldn't happen.
But at the same time, this situation would never have occured if we had not indulged in a phony "war" and still not explained/justified/apologised invasion.
Yeah I know, Goatboy banging his drum again and again and again and again.
But we are no closer today than we were 16 months ago to resolving this horseshit war.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
Scores of troops killed.
Beheadings live on the internet.
Daily bombings.
Terrorists where there were none.
Spiralling costs to keep troops there that you and I pay for.
No WMD found because they never were there.
No explanation offered from PM still as to the reasons.
David Kelly killing himself.
I said it at the start of the tubthumping and distant war-drums and I stand by it - scream and shout all you will:
Not for one single second were the concerns of "innocent Iraqis" the reason for this phony war.
And we stand here almost 2 years later with an increasingly dangerous, confusing, destabilising region that we used to support whole-heartedly.
So why did we go to "war" again?
[URL]http://www.livingstonemusic.net/saddam-rumsfeldfiles/rumsfield-saddam.gif[/URL] - Rumsfeld meeting and greeting Hussein in December 1983 during the height of the "massacres" being committed, with the gassing in Hallabjah only a couple years away.
Yeah sure he's an "evil hitler". Only when he defaults on his bills eh?
Why? Why the hell would you want to see that? It's a prurient leering that marks you as a ghoul with zero interest in the matter except to look at it and be shocked/be cool etc.
Now if I'm wrong, forgive me, but Paradox - it seems to me from you describing it in such detail that you're one of these clowns that has downloaded it. I don't understand why, nor do I care to be honest.
As for the "concern" being shown by Britain over the last remaining hostage? Blair on Tuesday did what? Thaaaat's right, he helped launch a virgin train with Richard Branson, had the Iraq Prime Minister for tea and did nothing. That we know of, sure. But if I was a family member of this hostage, I'd be furious to see Blair grinning inanely next to Branson at a train station.
Where is your compassion Blair? Your sense of duty and honour?
You caused this mess, don't you bloody take photo-ops when a "civil engineer" is facing execution.
But, for me, that sums it up. Blair sent troops over with little thought for what would happen.
And as tragic as this hostage thing is, why is it getting such saturated media coverage? A bomb went of killing 11 and injuring almost 100 in a marketplace on Tuesday (I think?), yet we saw nothing.
Because it was just a bunch of Arabs. Nevermind they are just as innocent as these 3 Westerners.
But we, or at least our media, doesn't give a single solitary damn if it's brownskins being killed. But as soon as a nice, "one of us" Anglo-Saxons is hurt? Front Page.
Why? Could it possibly be to strengthen public opinion against "terrorists" operating there, to demonise the region and to possibly try to halt the still-increasing "What the hell was the war for?" voices?
"Well if you question, then you clearly support these terrorists"
Please, that's as dumb as when Belldandy/The Media said if you opposed the original invasion then you were pro-Saddam.
Who, I'd like to point out, is still invisible and not being presented to anybody for interviews at all - until the elections in November. Mark my words, when Bush needs the support for his already agreed 2nd term, Hussain will be wheeled out and paraded as a spoil of war and not what he is - a former ally and recepient of Western aid/training/arms/funding/support.
It sucks that 2 Americans are dead and this English guy is facing that - it shouldn't happen.
But at the same time, this situation would never have occured if we had not indulged in a phony "war" and still not explained/justified/apologised invasion.
Yeah I know, Goatboy banging his drum again and again and again and again.
But we are no closer today than we were 16 months ago to resolving this horseshit war.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
Scores of troops killed.
Beheadings live on the internet.
Daily bombings.
Terrorists where there were none.
Spiralling costs to keep troops there that you and I pay for.
No WMD found because they never were there.
No explanation offered from PM still as to the reasons.
David Kelly killing himself.
I said it at the start of the tubthumping and distant war-drums and I stand by it - scream and shout all you will:
Not for one single second were the concerns of "innocent Iraqis" the reason for this phony war.
And we stand here almost 2 years later with an increasingly dangerous, confusing, destabilising region that we used to support whole-heartedly.
So why did we go to "war" again?
[URL]http://www.livingstonemusic.net/saddam-rumsfeldfiles/rumsfield-saddam.gif[/URL] - Rumsfeld meeting and greeting Hussein in December 1983 during the height of the "massacres" being committed, with the gassing in Hallabjah only a couple years away.
Yeah sure he's an "evil hitler". Only when he defaults on his bills eh?
I'd have released the women - with trackers embedded into them. They need to get the head honchos and fast. I can't believe that they still haven't found them. Sure, it wouldn't be easy, but with enough manpower and modern technology it is far from impossible.
I'm surprised to see there's not loads of topics about this already (sorry if there already is one - couldnt find one) but I think it's a pretty important issue.
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
So America, growing colder and more distant that ever, have let two of their citizens be executed. Why? Because America have a few Iraqi women held in their custody and are refusing to hand them over. Now I can see why they wouldn't want to hand over these women, they're potentially terrorists (after all they probably wear head-scarves!) but they didn't try and strike some sort of alternate deal, they simple said "so be it". I haven't seen any rescue attempts being made for these men, nor any Police-Camera-Action style stinger operations where they smuggle look-a-like women out in order to try and reclaim their lost citizens - oh no - Bush has done absolutely nothing.
Now this isn't an Anti-American rant, I beleive that a lot of American people are as discomforted by this matter as I am, and want something to be done. However there is a simple question of "what else could they do?"
Can Bush stand to let America be seen was weak to the rest of the world by conceding to a lesser-developed nation? No chance. This means the only viable alternatives are foreful tactics, such as sending special forces into the country to track down the hostages and reclaim them or some clever plot to delude the Iraqis into handing over the prisoners - and lets face it, clever plots are hardly the USA's forte.
For those of you who haven't seen or heard about these beheading videos, they are particularly gory. Not simply one swipe with a katana or guiloteen, but instead a series of butcherous hacks with a saw-like blade and a foot to the top of the spine as the head is wretched off. The guy is still screaming as it is done and seemingly alive for about 2/3 of the time. Imagine the fear in those poor men's hearts, and imagine the terror inside the English Guy's head now as he waits for his pending death, unless somehow America decide to save one of our citizens but not two of their own. Isn't the American constitution all about protecting civil liberties and human rights? Doesn't being beheaded contravene a human right? I beleive so.
So why aren't they doing anything? To be honest it baffles me. Surely conceding in this case and losing a bit of respect to save three innocent men is more respectable that sending three men to a gruesome death in order to stick to their guns on the issue. In my case I see America as colder, distant and more uncaring than before - and that's saying something.
Who's betting Kerry will use this in his election campaign to downsize Bush?
Page: