The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
9 minutes for that?
I bet you've heard that before. Mine may have been poor, but it took me a lot less time.
I bet you've heard that before. Mine may have been poor, but it took me a lot less time.
An' a copper an'all. Disgoostin'.
100,000 lives is a big number but I agree with mav to a point though. A few things that were true, Saddam is evil, he killed innoccent people, he aimed to use chemical weapons and he's better of not bieng leader than staying in power with the risk of many more people dying. Ok Bush and Blair started a war based on lies and to be honest they should have been sacked for it.
So its a worse place than when Saddam was there? thats a bit harsh, 100,000 have died, theres a big difference and it matters so much, thoose 100,000 people who died wearn't meant to die, they didn't have the intention of killing theese people, they didn't get tortured and insulted before they died and then thrown into there death pits? I think the best people to ask are the Iraqi people themselves, and the generall feeling apparently the last I knew is they dont see any real difference yet, but thats before anything thats been set up to help them. And try telling that to the family's of the victoms of Saddams torture regime.
The fact is if Bush senior had finished the job he started then we wouldn't be in this situation. I am also not saying we should have went to war, especially based on lies. What I am saying is that people like Saddam are evil, have the intention to kill innoccent people and should never be in a position to lead a country.
So its a worse place than when Saddam was there? thats a bit harsh, 100,000 have died, theres a big difference and it matters so much, thoose 100,000 people who died wearn't meant to die, they didn't have the intention of killing theese people, they didn't get tortured and insulted before they died and then thrown into there death pits? I think the best people to ask are the Iraqi people themselves, and the generall feeling apparently the last I knew is they dont see any real difference yet, but thats before anything thats been set up to help them. And try telling that to the family's of the victoms of Saddams torture regime.
The fact is if Bush senior had finished the job he started then we wouldn't be in this situation. I am also not saying we should have went to war, especially based on lies. What I am saying is that people like Saddam are evil, have the intention to kill innoccent people and should never be in a position to lead a country.
War will never be beneficial in the short term.
Perhaps we need to bear in mind long term benefits and the greater good.
Perhaps we need to bear in mind long term benefits and the greater good.
Mav wrote:
> War will never be beneficial in the short term.
>
> Perhaps we need to bear in mind long term benefits and the greater
> good.
Please, do enlighten me as to the long term benefits of the Iraqi land grab.
Oh, and try to bear in mind that the US Government actually said that saving Iraqi people from a tyrant was last on their list of Things To Do and wasn't enough on it's own to justify an invasion.
> War will never be beneficial in the short term.
>
> Perhaps we need to bear in mind long term benefits and the greater
> good.
Please, do enlighten me as to the long term benefits of the Iraqi land grab.
Oh, and try to bear in mind that the US Government actually said that saving Iraqi people from a tyrant was last on their list of Things To Do and wasn't enough on it's own to justify an invasion.
kevstar wrote:
> What I am saying is that
> people like Saddam are evil, have the intention to kill innoccent
> people and should never be in a position to lead a country.
Heh. One could very easily apply that statement to Dubya. In fact, I seem to recall Chomsky saying that every postwar president, if tried in court, would be convicted as a war criminal.
> What I am saying is that
> people like Saddam are evil, have the intention to kill innoccent
> people and should never be in a position to lead a country.
Heh. One could very easily apply that statement to Dubya. In fact, I seem to recall Chomsky saying that every postwar president, if tried in court, would be convicted as a war criminal.
Light wrote:
>
>
> Heh. One could very easily apply that statement to Dubya. In fact, I
> seem to recall Chomsky saying that every postwar president, if tried
> in court, would be convicted as a war criminal.
And your proberbly right to say that to, from what I know of Chomsky wasn't he refering to the way democracy was used as a scare tactic to influence wars in the past and even present e.g. saying Iraq was a threat, saying Vietnam was also a threat, making the public people believe there is a risk of attack and also making them believe it's right for them to attack first.
Bush should be sacked no doubt because America seems to be the only country which allows itself to attack another nation because it may be a threat in the future. That to me sounds illegal. One other thing which chomsky says when asked "Are governments inherently bad?" his rely was no. He is critical of government policies, not government itself. The problem here sounds like they are not using democracy in the right way.
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.
>
>
> Heh. One could very easily apply that statement to Dubya. In fact, I
> seem to recall Chomsky saying that every postwar president, if tried
> in court, would be convicted as a war criminal.
And your proberbly right to say that to, from what I know of Chomsky wasn't he refering to the way democracy was used as a scare tactic to influence wars in the past and even present e.g. saying Iraq was a threat, saying Vietnam was also a threat, making the public people believe there is a risk of attack and also making them believe it's right for them to attack first.
Bush should be sacked no doubt because America seems to be the only country which allows itself to attack another nation because it may be a threat in the future. That to me sounds illegal. One other thing which chomsky says when asked "Are governments inherently bad?" his rely was no. He is critical of government policies, not government itself. The problem here sounds like they are not using democracy in the right way.
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.
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?
> 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?
Light wrote:
>
> 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?
As far as i'm aware theres still a lot of debate regarding the gassing on Kurds e.g. some people still think that it was Iranians who actually killed there own people. The main reason behind this was the type of gas traces found, the gas found in Halabja was Iranians first choice of a cyanide type gas, while the Iraqis first choice of gas was a mustard type gas. So if Saddam did bomb the Kurds then why wasn't there no traces of mustard gas found?
I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And yeah isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres always going to be a risk.
No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on moral ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
>
> 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?
As far as i'm aware theres still a lot of debate regarding the gassing on Kurds e.g. some people still think that it was Iranians who actually killed there own people. The main reason behind this was the type of gas traces found, the gas found in Halabja was Iranians first choice of a cyanide type gas, while the Iraqis first choice of gas was a mustard type gas. So if Saddam did bomb the Kurds then why wasn't there no traces of mustard gas found?
I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And yeah isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres always going to be a risk.
No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on moral ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
kevstar wrote:
> but water is as good as any other reason.
> Saddam's Bath Party
Was that a joke?
> but water is as good as any other reason.
> Saddam's Bath Party
Was that a joke?
Page: