The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There's something happened within the last hour or so, and the most anyone knows is is that it was an "incident".
Anyway, was watching about it on Sky News, and they mentioned something about how last week, they went to recover a disabled vehicle the day after the first attack on them.
Now they're only meant to recover vehicles within half an hour of them losing it as such, yet they went in the day after - which they're saying suggests that they're short of vehicles.
It's not too great that these guys have been thrown in there (into a war which was falsely justified in the first place etc...) with a lack of vehicles and dodgy equipment.
There was just a bit of breaking news as well that the bomber who killed the 3 Black Watch guys was caucasian.
That's interesting...
Anyway, was watching about it on Sky News, and they mentioned something about how last week, they went to recover a disabled vehicle the day after the first attack on them.
Now they're only meant to recover vehicles within half an hour of them losing it as such, yet they went in the day after - which they're saying suggests that they're short of vehicles.
It's not too great that these guys have been thrown in there (into a war which was falsely justified in the first place etc...) with a lack of vehicles and dodgy equipment.
There was just a bit of breaking news as well that the bomber who killed the 3 Black Watch guys was caucasian.
That's interesting...
Page:
Pilger is the man
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with
> the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own
> self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick.
> Because,
> as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own
> case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
>
> So it would be ok if it was a war you were ok with?
> So, its only wrong, as long as you thing so?
> Again, you sound a lot more like Michael Howard every time i speak
> with you.
Well...yes, because at no point have I ever claimed to be a pacifist. I'm not opposed to war, I'm opposed to this war. I wasn't opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Nor was I opposed to the 1st Gulf war.
It's wrong if I think so? Well, me and several million others actually, but yes; most people get their judgements of right on wrong based on their own thought processes. You seem to simply accept the party line and regurgitate it. Yes, I think it is wrong and can provide reasons why I think it's wrong. All you can do is provide reasons why you've been told it's correct.
Jesus, I can't believe you've just tried to insult me for having a mind of my own...
Oh, constant comparisons to the Tory leader only work if one is a New Labour drone such as yourself. I don't see why you view it as an insult anyway; your views are Conservative in all but name.
> Light wrote:
> Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with
> the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own
> self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick.
> Because,
> as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own
> case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
>
> So it would be ok if it was a war you were ok with?
> So, its only wrong, as long as you thing so?
> Again, you sound a lot more like Michael Howard every time i speak
> with you.
Well...yes, because at no point have I ever claimed to be a pacifist. I'm not opposed to war, I'm opposed to this war. I wasn't opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Nor was I opposed to the 1st Gulf war.
It's wrong if I think so? Well, me and several million others actually, but yes; most people get their judgements of right on wrong based on their own thought processes. You seem to simply accept the party line and regurgitate it. Yes, I think it is wrong and can provide reasons why I think it's wrong. All you can do is provide reasons why you've been told it's correct.
Jesus, I can't believe you've just tried to insult me for having a mind of my own...
Oh, constant comparisons to the Tory leader only work if one is a New Labour drone such as yourself. I don't see why you view it as an insult anyway; your views are Conservative in all but name.
Light wrote:
> Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with
> the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own
> self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick. Because,
> as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own
> case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
So it would be ok if it was a war you were ok with?
So, its only wrong, as long as you thing so?
Again, you sound a lot more like Michael Howard every time i speak with you.
> Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with
> the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own
> self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick. Because,
> as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own
> case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
So it would be ok if it was a war you were ok with?
So, its only wrong, as long as you thing so?
Again, you sound a lot more like Michael Howard every time i speak with you.
Skarra wrote:
> I take it you disagree with the military tactics being used in Faluja
> then??
>
> Well, by all means, provide a better alternative. One that will lead
> to the battle of Faluja being shorter, with fewer losses on all
> sides.
> Or are your military tactics not up to the scratch of those of the
> Marine commanders who have learnt theirs in years of exstensive
> training and command?
Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick. Because, as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
> I take it you disagree with the military tactics being used in Faluja
> then??
>
> Well, by all means, provide a better alternative. One that will lead
> to the battle of Faluja being shorter, with fewer losses on all
> sides.
> Or are your military tactics not up to the scratch of those of the
> Marine commanders who have learnt theirs in years of exstensive
> training and command?
Actually, no I don't disagree with the tactics. I just disagree with the whole war. But I wanted to wind you up into a froth of your own self righteousness, and I knew this post would do the trick. Because, as you've long since proved you're not very good at arguing your own case, I thought I may as well get a few laughs out of you.
Light wrote:
> No. You wouldn't.
I take it you disagree with the military tactics being used in Faluja then??
Well, by all means, provide a better alternative. One that will lead to the battle of Faluja being shorter, with fewer losses on all sides.
Or are your military tactics not up to the scratch of those of the Marine commanders who have learnt theirs in years of exstensive training and command?
> No. You wouldn't.
I take it you disagree with the military tactics being used in Faluja then??
Well, by all means, provide a better alternative. One that will lead to the battle of Faluja being shorter, with fewer losses on all sides.
Or are your military tactics not up to the scratch of those of the Marine commanders who have learnt theirs in years of exstensive training and command?
No. You wouldn't.
I'm sorry, i don't see your point?
It's all insurents who have died, of course: [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6403689/[/URL]
And those water and electricity cut-offs are for humanitarian purposes:
[URL]http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041110denialofwater.pdf[/URL]
And here is the antidote:
[URL]http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200411150006[/URL]
And those water and electricity cut-offs are for humanitarian purposes:
[URL]http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041110denialofwater.pdf[/URL]
And here is the antidote:
[URL]http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200411150006[/URL]
SHEEPY wrote:
> I don't understand how 650/850 (not sure which) can replace 4000
> American soliders.
As far as i'm aware, the US have moved other forces aswell, i believe it is a Marine unit. So the British troops arn't the only ones filling in for the US troops taking Faluja(sp?) as far as i know.
> I don't understand how 650/850 (not sure which) can replace 4000
> American soliders.
As far as i'm aware, the US have moved other forces aswell, i believe it is a Marine unit. So the British troops arn't the only ones filling in for the US troops taking Faluja(sp?) as far as i know.
I don't understand how 650/850 (not sure which) can replace 4000 American soliders.
Page: