The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
By...erm...making it worse than it was under Saddam.
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
Page:
Good old US soliders... just seen one shoot an old man in the head.
He lying against the wall bleeding and heavily bleading. No sign of a weapon anywhere in the room... and the guy shoots him in the head.
Then I just seen them blow up a Mosque.
He lying against the wall bleeding and heavily bleading. No sign of a weapon anywhere in the room... and the guy shoots him in the head.
Then I just seen them blow up a Mosque.
[URL]http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/1104torture.htm[/URL]
I want to know how much more of this the world is going to take before they finally accept America is just as bad as the so called terrorists.
I want to know how much more of this the world is going to take before they finally accept America is just as bad as the so called terrorists.
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
>
Rubbish, it's well known Rumsfeld did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily". They allowed the export of biological agents, including anthrax and cluster bombs. In 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. They didn't support the lesser of two evils, Saddam was much the greater evil and to say otherwise is wrong. What America done wrong was to sell $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare along with the many other examples of turning a blind eye in order to satisfy America's obsesity with money.
>
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
>
So because it's a unique situation it gives them the right to be hypocritacal? Once someones been branded a hypocrite it's dam hard to shake that reputation off without someone using that as an excuse to make a point. And thats why it's so dangerous for the most powerfull Country in the world to be hypocrites. Why should I stop doing it when your doing it now.
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
>
Rubbish, it's well known Rumsfeld did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily". They allowed the export of biological agents, including anthrax and cluster bombs. In 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. They didn't support the lesser of two evils, Saddam was much the greater evil and to say otherwise is wrong. What America done wrong was to sell $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare along with the many other examples of turning a blind eye in order to satisfy America's obsesity with money.
>
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
>
So because it's a unique situation it gives them the right to be hypocritacal? Once someones been branded a hypocrite it's dam hard to shake that reputation off without someone using that as an excuse to make a point. And thats why it's so dangerous for the most powerfull Country in the world to be hypocrites. Why should I stop doing it when your doing it now.
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
>
> It depends, if its moving fast, probably not, as it 'd just be a
> blur.
My God; watching you trying to be witty is like watching a dog trying to master Spanish.
>
> When did i say Saddam wasn't a threat??? Your starting to sound like
> Michael Howard.
Well now; you're admitting that the reasons given were hypocritical lies. And one of the main reasons (the one that you stuck too like it was going to give you your first orgasm) was that we simply HAD to do something about the nasty man with his WOMD (despite the fact that we're happy to allow North Korea and, for now, Iran do much the same only moreso). Therefore, I inferred that's what you meant.
Why, do you still think he was a threat? If so, how? Oh, and nice avoidance of addressing criticisms of your craven, forelock tugging "don't disagree with what the master says" middle class attitude
>
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
>
> That makes no sense. Please, take me, very slowly and using visual
> aids, through your thought procces and tell me where your coming
> from.
It's called an insult dear boy.
My thought process? Well, you're cheerfully supporting a pointless war that causes misery and death because of some half formed notion that "it had to be done". And you're extremely careful to shut your eyes and ears to any evidence that the whole thing is about getting a few people rich. The Jews who assisted the Warsaw ghetto liquidation supported the ghetto because "it had to be done", and refused to believe the tales of death camps because they didn't want to.
Good enough for you, or do you require signed affadavits from holocaust survivors to prove it?
>
>
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
>
> Whats wrong with that? Thats the kind of proof you want to see in
> order to justify the war... Now who's being hypocritical?
Nah, I just wanted to see some intelligence that actually supported the case being made for war. None of it did, apart from the stuff they lied about. That's called "asking for some evidence". Not asking for a standard of proof you know to be impossible because you're too scared of admitting you might be wrong.
Oh, and as for what's wrong with it; under your logic, Hitler cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust as there are no documents signed by him authorising it. I suppose you'd have probably argued in the ghetto's that everyone should trust him, right?
> Light wrote:
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
>
> It depends, if its moving fast, probably not, as it 'd just be a
> blur.
My God; watching you trying to be witty is like watching a dog trying to master Spanish.
>
> When did i say Saddam wasn't a threat??? Your starting to sound like
> Michael Howard.
Well now; you're admitting that the reasons given were hypocritical lies. And one of the main reasons (the one that you stuck too like it was going to give you your first orgasm) was that we simply HAD to do something about the nasty man with his WOMD (despite the fact that we're happy to allow North Korea and, for now, Iran do much the same only moreso). Therefore, I inferred that's what you meant.
Why, do you still think he was a threat? If so, how? Oh, and nice avoidance of addressing criticisms of your craven, forelock tugging "don't disagree with what the master says" middle class attitude
>
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
>
> That makes no sense. Please, take me, very slowly and using visual
> aids, through your thought procces and tell me where your coming
> from.
It's called an insult dear boy.
My thought process? Well, you're cheerfully supporting a pointless war that causes misery and death because of some half formed notion that "it had to be done". And you're extremely careful to shut your eyes and ears to any evidence that the whole thing is about getting a few people rich. The Jews who assisted the Warsaw ghetto liquidation supported the ghetto because "it had to be done", and refused to believe the tales of death camps because they didn't want to.
Good enough for you, or do you require signed affadavits from holocaust survivors to prove it?
>
>
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
>
> Whats wrong with that? Thats the kind of proof you want to see in
> order to justify the war... Now who's being hypocritical?
Nah, I just wanted to see some intelligence that actually supported the case being made for war. None of it did, apart from the stuff they lied about. That's called "asking for some evidence". Not asking for a standard of proof you know to be impossible because you're too scared of admitting you might be wrong.
Oh, and as for what's wrong with it; under your logic, Hitler cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust as there are no documents signed by him authorising it. I suppose you'd have probably argued in the ghetto's that everyone should trust him, right?
Light wrote:
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
It depends, if its moving fast, probably not, as it 'd just be a blur.
> I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all
> nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm
> saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We
> shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're
> fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit
> such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're
> your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me
> sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the
> threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in
> any way.
When did i say Saddam wasn't a threat??? Your starting to sound like Michael Howard.
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
That makes no sense. Please, take me, very slowly and using visual aids, through your thought procces and tell me where your coming from.
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
Whats wrong with that? Thats the kind of proof you want to see in order to justify the war... Now who's being hypocritical?
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
It depends, if its moving fast, probably not, as it 'd just be a blur.
> I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all
> nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm
> saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We
> shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're
> fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit
> such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're
> your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me
> sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the
> threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in
> any way.
When did i say Saddam wasn't a threat??? Your starting to sound like Michael Howard.
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
That makes no sense. Please, take me, very slowly and using visual aids, through your thought procces and tell me where your coming from.
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
Whats wrong with that? Thats the kind of proof you want to see in order to justify the war... Now who's being hypocritical?
Heh. First smile you've managed to raise all afternoon. Well done.
Of course, you realise that I still expect you to justify your quite delightful doublethink, right?
Of course, you realise that I still expect you to justify your quite delightful doublethink, right?
Light wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
>
> Ah, I've missed your approach Skarra; can't come up with a decent
> answer? Why not try and make a weakly sarcastic comment to try and
> distract attention from that failure?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
>
> Well...yes. Yes it is. They sold the whole war on the "We're
> getting rid of an Evil Hitler (tm) who is going to use WOMD to
> destroy the world!!"
>
> Lets review this so far;
>
> - You say that pointing to previous governments being naughty is
> pointless because you can't hold current governments responsible for
> the actions of previous ones.
>
> - I point out that the current US government is made up of the
> flotsam and jetsam of previous ones.
>
> - You retort with "well...it doesn't matter anyway".
>
> What next? Are you going to copy my entire post and add
> "n't" on the end of it?
>
>
> Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view
> the war as such.
>
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
>
>
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with
> regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
>
> I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all
> nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm
> saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We
> shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're
> fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit
> such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're
> your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me
> sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the
> threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in
> any way.
>
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
>
>
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At
> least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't
> that
> all that REALLY matters?"
>
> If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
> If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was
> wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis
> are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
> But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
>
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
>
> You could have made that paragraph much shorter by simply saying
> "Actually, that's exactly what I was going to say".
n't!!!
> Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
>
> Ah, I've missed your approach Skarra; can't come up with a decent
> answer? Why not try and make a weakly sarcastic comment to try and
> distract attention from that failure?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
>
> Well...yes. Yes it is. They sold the whole war on the "We're
> getting rid of an Evil Hitler (tm) who is going to use WOMD to
> destroy the world!!"
>
> Lets review this so far;
>
> - You say that pointing to previous governments being naughty is
> pointless because you can't hold current governments responsible for
> the actions of previous ones.
>
> - I point out that the current US government is made up of the
> flotsam and jetsam of previous ones.
>
> - You retort with "well...it doesn't matter anyway".
>
> What next? Are you going to copy my entire post and add
> "n't" on the end of it?
>
>
> Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view
> the war as such.
>
> Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to
> gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a
> computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself;
> would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
>
>
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with
> regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
>
> I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all
> nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm
> saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We
> shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're
> fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit
> such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're
> your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me
> sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the
> threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in
> any way.
>
> You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the
> Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that
> sort of thing, don't they?
>
>
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At
> least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't
> that
> all that REALLY matters?"
>
> If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
> If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was
> wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis
> are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
> But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
>
> Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the
> possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary
> proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
>
> You could have made that paragraph much shorter by simply saying
> "Actually, that's exactly what I was going to say".
n't!!!
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
Ah, I've missed your approach Skarra; can't come up with a decent answer? Why not try and make a weakly sarcastic comment to try and distract attention from that failure?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
Well...yes. Yes it is. They sold the whole war on the "We're getting rid of an Evil Hitler (tm) who is going to use WOMD to destroy the world!!"
Lets review this so far;
- You say that pointing to previous governments being naughty is pointless because you can't hold current governments responsible for the actions of previous ones.
- I point out that the current US government is made up of the flotsam and jetsam of previous ones.
- You retort with "well...it doesn't matter anyway".
What next? Are you going to copy my entire post and add "n't" on the end of it?
> Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view
> the war as such.
Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself; would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in any way.
You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that sort of thing, don't they?
>
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At
> least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't
> that
> all that REALLY matters?"
>
> If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
> If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was
> wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis
> are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
> But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
You could have made that paragraph much shorter by simply saying "Actually, that's exactly what I was going to say".
> Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
>
> Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
Ah, I've missed your approach Skarra; can't come up with a decent answer? Why not try and make a weakly sarcastic comment to try and distract attention from that failure?
>
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
>
> Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at
> the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their
> policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
Well...yes. Yes it is. They sold the whole war on the "We're getting rid of an Evil Hitler (tm) who is going to use WOMD to destroy the world!!"
Lets review this so far;
- You say that pointing to previous governments being naughty is pointless because you can't hold current governments responsible for the actions of previous ones.
- I point out that the current US government is made up of the flotsam and jetsam of previous ones.
- You retort with "well...it doesn't matter anyway".
What next? Are you going to copy my entire post and add "n't" on the end of it?
> Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view
> the war as such.
Mm, your absolute and unconditional support for a pointless war to gain resources just proves that. And your sniffy dismissal of a computer game rather shows just how seriously you take yourself; would you recognise a flippant, off-hand remark if it bit you?
> Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm.
> Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black
> or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards
> to different and totally unique situations.
I can't, and I never intended to. My point has always been that all nations have rulers who are self serving smudges of vaginal pus. I'm saying that maybe we shouldn't put up with this immense hypocrisy. We shouldn't support a war because we're told what an evil man we're fighting, only to discover that we gave him the capability to commit such acts of evil in the first place. Your attitude is "They're your elders and betters, so do as they say", and it makes me sick. In one breath you say we have to remove Saddam because of the threat he posed, and in the next you admit he never was a threat in any way.
You're the sort of person who would have volunteered to help the Nazi's liquidate your own ghetto. Because hey, all nations do that sort of thing, don't they?
>
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At
> least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't
> that
> all that REALLY matters?"
>
> If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
> If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was
> wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis
> are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
> But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
Oh, of course. I'd forgotten that you won't ever admit the possibility of being wrong until you recieved written documentary proof signed in triplicate by the people involved.
You could have made that paragraph much shorter by simply saying "Actually, that's exactly what I was going to say".
Light wrote:
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
> I'm afraid calling someone simple and then offering someone a
> "Well...you don't know that for certain!" argument simply
> goes further to confirming my opinion of you as a crass little
> hypocrite who views the war as a large scale game of Red Alert.
Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view the war as such.
> Heh. So you argue that the war was justified to save the people of
> Iraq, then you try and say that even if it wasn't, the hypcrisy of it
> doesn't matter because....well, because what? Because you don't want
> to have to say "Y'know what? Something about this definitely
> doesn't ring true"?
Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm. Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards to different and totally unique situations.
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't that
> all that REALLY matters?"
If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
> Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment
> that previous policies were wrong?
Whats next, 'sorry for getting carried away at Waterloo'?
> Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and
> Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq?
> Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
Yes Hypocrites, so what??? They supported the lesser of two evils at the time. Then Saddam became the bigger evil, and changed their policy. Again, how is being a hypocrite enough to be morally wrong?
> I'm afraid calling someone simple and then offering someone a
> "Well...you don't know that for certain!" argument simply
> goes further to confirming my opinion of you as a crass little
> hypocrite who views the war as a large scale game of Red Alert.
Shows how much you know, i've never played Red Alert. Nor do i view the war as such.
> Heh. So you argue that the war was justified to save the people of
> Iraq, then you try and say that even if it wasn't, the hypcrisy of it
> doesn't matter because....well, because what? Because you don't want
> to have to say "Y'know what? Something about this definitely
> doesn't ring true"?
Name 1 country in the world that isn't hypocritical??? Its the norm. Countries don't have the luxury of being able to see things as black or white. They have to take alternative policy decisions with regards to different and totally unique situations.
> What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have
> been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At least
> I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't that
> all that REALLY matters?"
If it turns out that it was 100% for oil, i will admit i was wrong.
If it is 100% proven that it was based on lies, i will admit i was wrong. If it is 100% proven that 50 years down the line, the Iraqis are no better off, i will admit i was wrong.
But as non of that has happened, so i won't!
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Compare this with Saddams regime where democracy wasn't a question
> because he killed the majority of people against him. Killed people
> for fun, tested weapons on there neighbours and thats just what we
> know about.
>
> We know about it because western governments not only approved of
> the
> gassing of kurds and war with Iran, it was encourged and the weapons
> to do so were sold to him by the US, UK, France, Germany...
>
> And now, suddenly, we're acting on moral grounds? Do you really
> believe that?
>
> COME ON!!! Are you really that simple.
>
> Tell me, who was in Government when those decisions were made??? The
> exact same people as today??? NOOOO!!! Governments, Ministers and
> Policies can change in a matter of hours.
Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment that previous policies were wrong?
Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq? Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
I'm afraid calling someone simple and then offering someone a "Well...you don't know that for certain!" argument simply goes further to confirming my opinion of you as a crass little hypocrite who views the war as a large scale game of Red Alert.
> And so what if its hypocritical, since when has, do as i say, not
> what i do been sufficient grounds for being morally corrupt?
Heh. So you argue that the war was justified to save the people of Iraq, then you try and say that even if it wasn't, the hypcrisy of it doesn't matter because....well, because what? Because you don't want to have to say "Y'know what? Something about this definitely doesn't ring true"?
What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At least I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't that all that REALLY matters?"
> Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Compare this with Saddams regime where democracy wasn't a question
> because he killed the majority of people against him. Killed people
> for fun, tested weapons on there neighbours and thats just what we
> know about.
>
> We know about it because western governments not only approved of
> the
> gassing of kurds and war with Iran, it was encourged and the weapons
> to do so were sold to him by the US, UK, France, Germany...
>
> And now, suddenly, we're acting on moral grounds? Do you really
> believe that?
>
> COME ON!!! Are you really that simple.
>
> Tell me, who was in Government when those decisions were made??? The
> exact same people as today??? NOOOO!!! Governments, Ministers and
> Policies can change in a matter of hours.
Mm, true enough. So if that's the case, where's the acknowledgment that previous policies were wrong?
Oh, and how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Cheney being in the US governments that sold the weapons to Iraq? Hell, Rumsfeld even met with Saddam...
I'm afraid calling someone simple and then offering someone a "Well...you don't know that for certain!" argument simply goes further to confirming my opinion of you as a crass little hypocrite who views the war as a large scale game of Red Alert.
> And so what if its hypocritical, since when has, do as i say, not
> what i do been sufficient grounds for being morally corrupt?
Heh. So you argue that the war was justified to save the people of Iraq, then you try and say that even if it wasn't, the hypcrisy of it doesn't matter because....well, because what? Because you don't want to have to say "Y'know what? Something about this definitely doesn't ring true"?
What next? "So what if it was entirely for oil, and people have been sent to their deaths in order to make a few men richer. At least I haven't had to admit that I may be wrong in any way. And isn't that all that REALLY matters?"
Page: