The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So Bush gives his speech to a military base in America on the anniversary of the handing of power over to the Iraqis (sure, with zero involvement behind the scenes...whoops, cynical old me).
He is facing his lowest approval ratings since beginning his presidency according to a Gallup poll, especially since Rumsfeld said troops could expect to remain in Iraq for up to 12years.
And yet again he talks of Iraq and links it to September the 11th.
Constantly mentions Sept 11 to hammer home the point of the need to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home".
*sigh*
Except as we all know here and anybody that reads beyond "Evil Tyrant" headlines, Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11. But that fact, pretty important I'd say, seems to escape his attention and the attention of sycophantic news agencies and, sadly, the bovine mindset of Average Joe.
Quick questions:
How many of the September hijackers were from Iraq?
In which part of Iraq was Bin-Laden hiding before, during and after?
Which middle eastern dictator was loathed by the Taliban for his previous links to The West?
How many terrorist attacks have Iraq launched against any Western country ever?
How many Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found and neutralised, providing safety and protection for our castles?
Yet Bush etc continually harp on about ""The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11." and "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens - and Iraq is where they are making their stand"
Excuse me? There were no terrorist (insurgents/radicals/freedom fighters depending on your idealogy) in Iraq before we launched an attack on a docile and neutred country rich with loot, sorry, culture.
As with the ID card discussions at the moment, it's focusing on the details and not looking at the obvious, staring you in the face questions we have:
Where are the weapons we were told were a threat to us?
Why are we not having emergency drills blocking off the centre of London anymore, despite daily slaughter in Iraq?
Why are we not having leaflets put through our door telling us how to survice a terrorist attack?
Why do we not have tanks at airports protecting us from...well, a guy with a toy grenade (hailing from Pakistan) was arrested. But not by a tank.
Why then, if Iraq poses such a threat, have we had zero incidents since attacking them OVER 3 YEARS AGO?
Where are the grateful smiling Iraqis blessing us for relieving them of the burden of daily torture and death?
Because we were told by a smiling smug Bush in March 2003 that we had won. I remember that, he was standing on an aircraft carrier dressed like a pilot (despite going AWOL from his duties with the Texas National Air Guard) saying "Operation Enduring Freedom was a success".
So it seems odd, 2 years later, that daily people are still being bombed and blown up by ungrateful terrorists (these are not Freedom Fighters, only caucasian or government approved terrorists are called that).
1,200 Iraqis dead since the transfer of power 12 months ago. That's not counting the number of civilian deaths since the start of the "war", I'll leave you to go find the numbers because they're conflicting and I don't want to tell you the exact figure but there are thousands.
Our soldiers deserve better. Those guys are willing to put their lives on the line in defence of our realm. That's a level of committment I can't offer, I don't have the balls to do that.
But those men & women out there do just that, daily.
We as a nation, and especially supposed leaders like Blair & Bush, owe them more respect and honour than using them as little toy men on a board in a wargame played out in an office over cigars and brandy.
To take those people's willingness to fight and die so we don't have to and to expend it on something as fraudalent as this "War on Terror" demeans them, and Blair & Bush should be ashamed.
I want to see their kids leading the charge, that way I'll believe Blair when he tells me "there is no other option to protect our safety"
Until that time, all I see are smiling liars in expensive suits throwing away lives so they can preen and look dashing in the history books.
He is facing his lowest approval ratings since beginning his presidency according to a Gallup poll, especially since Rumsfeld said troops could expect to remain in Iraq for up to 12years.
And yet again he talks of Iraq and links it to September the 11th.
Constantly mentions Sept 11 to hammer home the point of the need to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home".
*sigh*
Except as we all know here and anybody that reads beyond "Evil Tyrant" headlines, Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11. But that fact, pretty important I'd say, seems to escape his attention and the attention of sycophantic news agencies and, sadly, the bovine mindset of Average Joe.
Quick questions:
How many of the September hijackers were from Iraq?
In which part of Iraq was Bin-Laden hiding before, during and after?
Which middle eastern dictator was loathed by the Taliban for his previous links to The West?
How many terrorist attacks have Iraq launched against any Western country ever?
How many Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found and neutralised, providing safety and protection for our castles?
Yet Bush etc continually harp on about ""The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11." and "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens - and Iraq is where they are making their stand"
Excuse me? There were no terrorist (insurgents/radicals/freedom fighters depending on your idealogy) in Iraq before we launched an attack on a docile and neutred country rich with loot, sorry, culture.
As with the ID card discussions at the moment, it's focusing on the details and not looking at the obvious, staring you in the face questions we have:
Where are the weapons we were told were a threat to us?
Why are we not having emergency drills blocking off the centre of London anymore, despite daily slaughter in Iraq?
Why are we not having leaflets put through our door telling us how to survice a terrorist attack?
Why do we not have tanks at airports protecting us from...well, a guy with a toy grenade (hailing from Pakistan) was arrested. But not by a tank.
Why then, if Iraq poses such a threat, have we had zero incidents since attacking them OVER 3 YEARS AGO?
Where are the grateful smiling Iraqis blessing us for relieving them of the burden of daily torture and death?
Because we were told by a smiling smug Bush in March 2003 that we had won. I remember that, he was standing on an aircraft carrier dressed like a pilot (despite going AWOL from his duties with the Texas National Air Guard) saying "Operation Enduring Freedom was a success".
So it seems odd, 2 years later, that daily people are still being bombed and blown up by ungrateful terrorists (these are not Freedom Fighters, only caucasian or government approved terrorists are called that).
1,200 Iraqis dead since the transfer of power 12 months ago. That's not counting the number of civilian deaths since the start of the "war", I'll leave you to go find the numbers because they're conflicting and I don't want to tell you the exact figure but there are thousands.
Our soldiers deserve better. Those guys are willing to put their lives on the line in defence of our realm. That's a level of committment I can't offer, I don't have the balls to do that.
But those men & women out there do just that, daily.
We as a nation, and especially supposed leaders like Blair & Bush, owe them more respect and honour than using them as little toy men on a board in a wargame played out in an office over cigars and brandy.
To take those people's willingness to fight and die so we don't have to and to expend it on something as fraudalent as this "War on Terror" demeans them, and Blair & Bush should be ashamed.
I want to see their kids leading the charge, that way I'll believe Blair when he tells me "there is no other option to protect our safety"
Until that time, all I see are smiling liars in expensive suits throwing away lives so they can preen and look dashing in the history books.
The good thing about Bush & Co is that they are totally incompetent. There are 2 basic camps of opposition to the war now in the US. One saying they should never have gone, and the other saying they should have had more troops, been more organized, had clearer objectives, etc.
We should be thankful that these neo-cons are so deluded that they couldn't organize a p-issup in a brewery. If they had made a success of Iraq they'd probly be onto another 2 or 3 countries by now, and we'd be half-way to World War 3.
The G8 Summit - A Fraud & A Circus: [URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
.
We should be thankful that these neo-cons are so deluded that they couldn't organize a p-issup in a brewery. If they had made a success of Iraq they'd probly be onto another 2 or 3 countries by now, and we'd be half-way to World War 3.
The G8 Summit - A Fraud & A Circus: [URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
.
Game wrote:
> There were never any WMD's found because IRAQ and it's allies, which
> may or may not include Russia, make up a very large area of the
> world. Digging 100FT down in every square mile of desert is
> unfeasible. The WMD's, IF there are any, could very easily have been
> moved.
As far as I understand, there is no evidence for thier existance at all.
> I think maybe the US should have focused thier attempts on Bin Laden.
> He's obviously the main threat looking to the future.
Why? Bin Laden was 'behind' Sept 11th only in terms of finance. As far as I am aware, he was not involves in formulating / planning the attack. I would assume that now, as one of the most wanted men in the world, he no longer has financial assets and so is not a threat?
> There were never any WMD's found because IRAQ and it's allies, which
> may or may not include Russia, make up a very large area of the
> world. Digging 100FT down in every square mile of desert is
> unfeasible. The WMD's, IF there are any, could very easily have been
> moved.
As far as I understand, there is no evidence for thier existance at all.
> I think maybe the US should have focused thier attempts on Bin Laden.
> He's obviously the main threat looking to the future.
Why? Bin Laden was 'behind' Sept 11th only in terms of finance. As far as I am aware, he was not involves in formulating / planning the attack. I would assume that now, as one of the most wanted men in the world, he no longer has financial assets and so is not a threat?
Yes George, all the bad men are overseas...
*cough*OklahomaBombing*cough*
*cough*OklahomaBombing*cough*
See, I've come into this thread about 3 times now, clicked 'post new message' and then not written anything ...
It's just so ... rargh ...
...
It's just so ... rargh ...
...
And today we have the proposal to ban spontaenous protests in a specific "zone" in London without applying for a permit beforehand.
So you have to ask the government if you can protest against the government near Westminster?
Apparently it's "distracting".
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4640007.stm[/URL]
Nice to see we live in a Democracy
So you have to ask the government if you can protest against the government near Westminster?
Apparently it's "distracting".
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4640007.stm[/URL]
Nice to see we live in a Democracy
Game wrote:
> There were never any WMD's found because IRAQ and it's allies, which
> may or may not include Russia, make up a very large area of the
> world. Digging 100FT down in every square mile of desert is
> unfeasible. The WMD's, IF there are any, could very easily have been
> moved.
WMD buried 100 feet underground? And you don't think, say, that might take a bit of time to do? Dig a 100ft hole large enough to store chemical weapons capable of flight? And you don't think someone might notice? Kinda of defeats the object of having the things, if you keep them buried underground, doesn't it?
We've been there for YEARS now, and there's not a trace of WMD. Not one lead. Lots of people from the former Iraqi administration have been captured too, and quite possibly been tortured in Guantanemo and we still have nothing. It's time to give up on that issue.
> There were never any WMD's found because IRAQ and it's allies, which
> may or may not include Russia, make up a very large area of the
> world. Digging 100FT down in every square mile of desert is
> unfeasible. The WMD's, IF there are any, could very easily have been
> moved.
WMD buried 100 feet underground? And you don't think, say, that might take a bit of time to do? Dig a 100ft hole large enough to store chemical weapons capable of flight? And you don't think someone might notice? Kinda of defeats the object of having the things, if you keep them buried underground, doesn't it?
We've been there for YEARS now, and there's not a trace of WMD. Not one lead. Lots of people from the former Iraqi administration have been captured too, and quite possibly
There were never any WMD's found because IRAQ and it's allies, which may or may not include Russia, make up a very large area of the world. Digging 100FT down in every square mile of desert is unfeasible. The WMD's, IF there are any, could very easily have been moved.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein had been dethroned. Granted, i'd have done things differently... like Sniped him, or just C4'ed his house at night... but the fact he's gone is good. What ISN'T good, is the fact that Iraq is a mess, the country is in ruins, etc.
I think maybe the US should have focused thier attempts on Bin Laden. He's obviously the main threat looking to the future. The there's Russia. North Korea and the insufferable KIM.. JONG... IL!!!! Goodbrye, Team Amewica!
Seriously, though... If the US manages to get up North Koreas, Russias, Iraq ans Afganistans noses on a small timescale... they're well and truly fkd. I hope we side with whoever wins. hah.
Personally, I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein had been dethroned. Granted, i'd have done things differently... like Sniped him, or just C4'ed his house at night... but the fact he's gone is good. What ISN'T good, is the fact that Iraq is a mess, the country is in ruins, etc.
I think maybe the US should have focused thier attempts on Bin Laden. He's obviously the main threat looking to the future. The there's Russia. North Korea and the insufferable KIM.. JONG... IL!!!! Goodbrye, Team Amewica!
Seriously, though... If the US manages to get up North Koreas, Russias, Iraq ans Afganistans noses on a small timescale... they're well and truly fkd. I hope we side with whoever wins. hah.
Anyone who delivers a speech containing "Ask me my three main priorities for government and I'll tell you education, education, and education" and then drops student grants, and forces many more students into higher education, thereby devaluing the whole system, has proven themselves untrustworthy. Unfortunately, this isn't the only time Tony Blair has proven to be so, as you neatly illustrate.
There were never any WMD. No terrorist threat. Our leaders take on a "fight them on the beaches" attitude, but there's no one on the beaches to fight. They were told beforehand that an invasion would make things worse in Iraq, rather than give any improvement. And lo and behold, the situation has done just that.
There were never any WMD. No terrorist threat. Our leaders take on a "fight them on the beaches" attitude, but there's no one on the beaches to fight. They were told beforehand that an invasion would make things worse in Iraq, rather than give any improvement. And lo and behold, the situation has done just that.
So Bush gives his speech to a military base in America on the anniversary of the handing of power over to the Iraqis (sure, with zero involvement behind the scenes...whoops, cynical old me).
He is facing his lowest approval ratings since beginning his presidency according to a Gallup poll, especially since Rumsfeld said troops could expect to remain in Iraq for up to 12years.
And yet again he talks of Iraq and links it to September the 11th.
Constantly mentions Sept 11 to hammer home the point of the need to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home".
*sigh*
Except as we all know here and anybody that reads beyond "Evil Tyrant" headlines, Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11. But that fact, pretty important I'd say, seems to escape his attention and the attention of sycophantic news agencies and, sadly, the bovine mindset of Average Joe.
Quick questions:
How many of the September hijackers were from Iraq?
In which part of Iraq was Bin-Laden hiding before, during and after?
Which middle eastern dictator was loathed by the Taliban for his previous links to The West?
How many terrorist attacks have Iraq launched against any Western country ever?
How many Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found and neutralised, providing safety and protection for our castles?
Yet Bush etc continually harp on about ""The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11." and "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens - and Iraq is where they are making their stand"
Excuse me? There were no terrorist (insurgents/radicals/freedom fighters depending on your idealogy) in Iraq before we launched an attack on a docile and neutred country rich with loot, sorry, culture.
As with the ID card discussions at the moment, it's focusing on the details and not looking at the obvious, staring you in the face questions we have:
Where are the weapons we were told were a threat to us?
Why are we not having emergency drills blocking off the centre of London anymore, despite daily slaughter in Iraq?
Why are we not having leaflets put through our door telling us how to survice a terrorist attack?
Why do we not have tanks at airports protecting us from...well, a guy with a toy grenade (hailing from Pakistan) was arrested. But not by a tank.
Why then, if Iraq poses such a threat, have we had zero incidents since attacking them OVER 3 YEARS AGO?
Where are the grateful smiling Iraqis blessing us for relieving them of the burden of daily torture and death?
Because we were told by a smiling smug Bush in March 2003 that we had won. I remember that, he was standing on an aircraft carrier dressed like a pilot (despite going AWOL from his duties with the Texas National Air Guard) saying "Operation Enduring Freedom was a success".
So it seems odd, 2 years later, that daily people are still being bombed and blown up by ungrateful terrorists (these are not Freedom Fighters, only caucasian or government approved terrorists are called that).
1,200 Iraqis dead since the transfer of power 12 months ago. That's not counting the number of civilian deaths since the start of the "war", I'll leave you to go find the numbers because they're conflicting and I don't want to tell you the exact figure but there are thousands.
Our soldiers deserve better. Those guys are willing to put their lives on the line in defence of our realm. That's a level of committment I can't offer, I don't have the balls to do that.
But those men & women out there do just that, daily.
We as a nation, and especially supposed leaders like Blair & Bush, owe them more respect and honour than using them as little toy men on a board in a wargame played out in an office over cigars and brandy.
To take those people's willingness to fight and die so we don't have to and to expend it on something as fraudalent as this "War on Terror" demeans them, and Blair & Bush should be ashamed.
I want to see their kids leading the charge, that way I'll believe Blair when he tells me "there is no other option to protect our safety"
Until that time, all I see are smiling liars in expensive suits throwing away lives so they can preen and look dashing in the history books.
He is facing his lowest approval ratings since beginning his presidency according to a Gallup poll, especially since Rumsfeld said troops could expect to remain in Iraq for up to 12years.
And yet again he talks of Iraq and links it to September the 11th.
Constantly mentions Sept 11 to hammer home the point of the need to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home".
*sigh*
Except as we all know here and anybody that reads beyond "Evil Tyrant" headlines, Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11. But that fact, pretty important I'd say, seems to escape his attention and the attention of sycophantic news agencies and, sadly, the bovine mindset of Average Joe.
Quick questions:
How many of the September hijackers were from Iraq?
In which part of Iraq was Bin-Laden hiding before, during and after?
Which middle eastern dictator was loathed by the Taliban for his previous links to The West?
How many terrorist attacks have Iraq launched against any Western country ever?
How many Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found and neutralised, providing safety and protection for our castles?
Yet Bush etc continually harp on about ""The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11." and "we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens - and Iraq is where they are making their stand"
Excuse me? There were no terrorist (insurgents/radicals/freedom fighters depending on your idealogy) in Iraq before we launched an attack on a docile and neutred country rich with loot, sorry, culture.
As with the ID card discussions at the moment, it's focusing on the details and not looking at the obvious, staring you in the face questions we have:
Where are the weapons we were told were a threat to us?
Why are we not having emergency drills blocking off the centre of London anymore, despite daily slaughter in Iraq?
Why are we not having leaflets put through our door telling us how to survice a terrorist attack?
Why do we not have tanks at airports protecting us from...well, a guy with a toy grenade (hailing from Pakistan) was arrested. But not by a tank.
Why then, if Iraq poses such a threat, have we had zero incidents since attacking them OVER 3 YEARS AGO?
Where are the grateful smiling Iraqis blessing us for relieving them of the burden of daily torture and death?
Because we were told by a smiling smug Bush in March 2003 that we had won. I remember that, he was standing on an aircraft carrier dressed like a pilot (despite going AWOL from his duties with the Texas National Air Guard) saying "Operation Enduring Freedom was a success".
So it seems odd, 2 years later, that daily people are still being bombed and blown up by ungrateful terrorists (these are not Freedom Fighters, only caucasian or government approved terrorists are called that).
1,200 Iraqis dead since the transfer of power 12 months ago. That's not counting the number of civilian deaths since the start of the "war", I'll leave you to go find the numbers because they're conflicting and I don't want to tell you the exact figure but there are thousands.
Our soldiers deserve better. Those guys are willing to put their lives on the line in defence of our realm. That's a level of committment I can't offer, I don't have the balls to do that.
But those men & women out there do just that, daily.
We as a nation, and especially supposed leaders like Blair & Bush, owe them more respect and honour than using them as little toy men on a board in a wargame played out in an office over cigars and brandy.
To take those people's willingness to fight and die so we don't have to and to expend it on something as fraudalent as this "War on Terror" demeans them, and Blair & Bush should be ashamed.
I want to see their kids leading the charge, that way I'll believe Blair when he tells me "there is no other option to protect our safety"
Until that time, all I see are smiling liars in expensive suits throwing away lives so they can preen and look dashing in the history books.