The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 imagine this has probably been discussed numerous times on these forums before, but I just wanted to say a few things about the War in the Middle East, and get my views across.
I suppose the big question that everyone would like to know the truth about is the reason for why we and the US are over there for in the first place. The freedom of Iraq and Afghanistans people, Oil or something else entirely?
I have a personal belief that the real reason we are over there is actually mainly due to the possible threat Iran may pose to the West if it continues with its Nuclear Missile programme.
If you think about the two countries we are in (Iraq and Afghanistan) they border Iran to the East and West which basically means that if the US and the UK have allies in these countries we are in perfect flanking positions if anything did kick off and the US did decide to go for Iran. So I believe the whole plan is to have bases already built on the borders of these countries so that we are ready should the worst happen.
I don't neccesarily believe that the US invaded these countries in retaliation of 9/11, in fact I am one of the people that is far from convinced that anyone in these countries was responsible at all.
As horrible as it may sound I would not put anything past the US government that was in power when the decision to go to war was issued, and yes I will say it, I think there is a strong possibility that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government or they at least knew it was going to happen. This was their 'perfect' excuse to go over to the Middle East no questions asked.
So do I agree with the war that is taking place? If I'm being honest, no I don't. I have every respect for every soldier out there, I really do, but I just don't believe they should be there. I believe they fight for a cause they strongly believe in and I don't want to take anything away from them, but I feel that both the US and UK governments are lieing straight to their faces.
Well I think I've said all I wanted to say, and I know everyone has different opinions on this subject, but I suppose we will all just have to see what happens in the future to see if the truth rears its head.
My personal opinion is that we may withdraw for a short period of time but only when we have made considerable allies in the Middle East, and then it'll all kick off again when the US decides it's had enough of waiting around and goes for Iran.
These are obviously just my personal views and I apologize if my opinions may have offended or angered some people.
I suppose the big question that everyone would like to know the truth about is the reason for why we and the US are over there for in the first place. The freedom of Iraq and Afghanistans people, Oil or something else entirely?
I have a personal belief that the real reason we are over there is actually mainly due to the possible threat Iran may pose to the West if it continues with its Nuclear Missile programme.
If you think about the two countries we are in (Iraq and Afghanistan) they border Iran to the East and West which basically means that if the US and the UK have allies in these countries we are in perfect flanking positions if anything did kick off and the US did decide to go for Iran. So I believe the whole plan is to have bases already built on the borders of these countries so that we are ready should the worst happen.
I don't neccesarily believe that the US invaded these countries in retaliation of 9/11, in fact I am one of the people that is far from convinced that anyone in these countries was responsible at all.
As horrible as it may sound I would not put anything past the US government that was in power when the decision to go to war was issued, and yes I will say it, I think there is a strong possibility that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government or they at least knew it was going to happen. This was their 'perfect' excuse to go over to the Middle East no questions asked.
So do I agree with the war that is taking place? If I'm being honest, no I don't. I have every respect for every soldier out there, I really do, but I just don't believe they should be there. I believe they fight for a cause they strongly believe in and I don't want to take anything away from them, but I feel that both the US and UK governments are lieing straight to their faces.
Well I think I've said all I wanted to say, and I know everyone has different opinions on this subject, but I suppose we will all just have to see what happens in the future to see if the truth rears its head.
My personal opinion is that we may withdraw for a short period of time but only when we have made considerable allies in the Middle East, and then it'll all kick off again when the US decides it's had enough of waiting around and goes for Iran.
These are obviously just my personal views and I apologize if my opinions may have offended or angered some people.
Page:
Nin wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]I think the main issue with that view is; why didn't they go to war with other, even worse, dictators? Africa, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Burma...even China to a certain extent.
Because the US economy is financially reliant on oil. And they'd get a good kicking if they messed with China.
And I'd like to add that this idea that the US manufactured 9/11 is a nonsense but I could totally believe that they let it happen.
In regards to Iraq, in my mind there is absolutely no question that that was was/is illegal but was an unfortunate necessity given the outlook for that whole area.[/i]
That's the most balanced view I've read so far. Agree 100%
pb wrote:
[i]I think the main issue with that view is; why didn't they go to war with other, even worse, dictators? Africa, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Burma...even China to a certain extent.
Because the US economy is financially reliant on oil. And they'd get a good kicking if they messed with China.
And I'd like to add that this idea that the US manufactured 9/11 is a nonsense but I could totally believe that they let it happen.
In regards to Iraq, in my mind there is absolutely no question that that was was/is illegal but was an unfortunate necessity given the outlook for that whole area.[/i]
That's the most balanced view I've read so far. Agree 100%
Sonic Chris wrote:
When I refer to England, I'm referring to the terror threat, rather than actual involvement in the war. English cities are probably priority targets for terrorists.
London 1 Glasgow Airport 1 - 'nuff said ;)
I hate to keep pointing out, but oil prices didnt drop, the west didn't really benefit, the oil barons were not involved in the war........ but hey logic seems to have failed where the war is concerned (on all levels).
The very worst (which is likely I'll admit) is that there was an aspect of protecting our interests making sure our enemies didnt have it.
And I disagree with pb's comment agreeing with Nin's comment disagreeing with blah blah blah. You say its the most balanced view yet, yet it is not balanced and instead seems to agree with yours earlier. Saying the war was based on oil is cynical and not based on any evidence, that isn't really balanced.
Agree with everything else Nin said though. As I said in both my earlier posts........... the war was necessary regardless of extra motives. People seem to have forgot this so that they can have something else to seem cool (cynical) moaning about!
When I refer to England, I'm referring to the terror threat, rather than actual involvement in the war. English cities are probably priority targets for terrorists.
London 1 Glasgow Airport 1 - 'nuff said ;)
I hate to keep pointing out, but oil prices didnt drop, the west didn't really benefit, the oil barons were not involved in the war........ but hey logic seems to have failed where the war is concerned (on all levels).
The very worst (which is likely I'll admit) is that there was an aspect of protecting our interests making sure our enemies didnt have it.
And I disagree with pb's comment agreeing with Nin's comment disagreeing with blah blah blah. You say its the most balanced view yet, yet it is not balanced and instead seems to agree with yours earlier. Saying the war was based on oil is cynical and not based on any evidence, that isn't really balanced.
Agree with everything else Nin said though. As I said in both my earlier posts........... the war was necessary regardless of extra motives. People seem to have forgot this so that they can have something else to seem cool (cynical) moaning about!
It's not black and white. The way I read Nin's argument was that Oil wasn't the sole motivating factor, but it was a factor.
You can't say that Bush didn't have a vested interest in the Oil fields when his father has such a large stake in the industry. It's not to keep prices down for the consumer either, American business doesn't work like that. It's to maintain power and control.
You can't say that Bush didn't have a vested interest in the Oil fields when his father has such a large stake in the industry. It's not to keep prices down for the consumer either, American business doesn't work like that. It's to maintain power and control.
So the whole war and everyone who died, including English and a few other contributing countries (near the beginning) soldiers died for Bush (inappropriate giggle). And people base this on a suspicious coincidence rather than fact, yet therir main argument seems to be the lack of facts to start the war? 0_o The mind boggles.
Pffff is all I can say. It's cynicism for the sake of it IMO.
It's like saying we joined World War 2 because Germany produce good beer, and we all know how much Churchill liked his beer............. (spirits I know but that wouldnt have sense :D)
EDIT: Ok no a slight coincidence, one which I too think is suspicious. Cleared that up above.
Pffff is all I can say. It's cynicism for the sake of it IMO.
It's like saying we joined World War 2 because Germany produce good beer, and we all know how much Churchill liked his beer............. (spirits I know but that wouldnt have sense :D)
EDIT: Ok no a slight coincidence, one which I too think is suspicious. Cleared that up above.
Actually, we had good trade relations with Germany and that formed part of the reason that PREVENTED us going in to the war earlier. Many talks with Hitler and the Nazi government took place to try and broker a solution before we finally decided to go to war.
9/11 didn't cause us to go to war with Iraq and terrorists in general, that's for sure. It was the catalyst for getting people behind the idea rather than the cause. The decision to go to war predates the attacks. You have to remember that we'd already been at war with Iraq years before under the elder Bush president.
The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Of course this alone wouldn't have been enough to get the decision passed to go to war, even the first time, but back then there was little else to justify it even if there was more of a justification this last time.
9/11 didn't cause us to go to war with Iraq and terrorists in general, that's for sure. It was the catalyst for getting people behind the idea rather than the cause. The decision to go to war predates the attacks. You have to remember that we'd already been at war with Iraq years before under the elder Bush president.
The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Of course this alone wouldn't have been enough to get the decision passed to go to war, even the first time, but back then there was little else to justify it even if there was more of a justification this last time.
And that is exactly what my opinion is pb. Glad you said it that way.
My only point is "oil was the reason" is naive and cynical. It was a contributing factor, logic would dictate that I guess, but the war wasn't based on this.
I remember at the time that a large percentage (even the majority) of people were behind the war, or at least not against it. Even the media seemed to say it needed to be done.
Then this sudden U-Turn when the lack of WMD was uttered, yet that really wasn't why the public saw it a necessity. It was the terror.
Still who knows eh?
My only point is "oil was the reason" is naive and cynical. It was a contributing factor, logic would dictate that I guess, but the war wasn't based on this.
I remember at the time that a large percentage (even the majority) of people were behind the war, or at least not against it. Even the media seemed to say it needed to be done.
Then this sudden U-Turn when the lack of WMD was uttered, yet that really wasn't why the public saw it a necessity. It was the terror.
Still who knows eh?
pb wrote:
The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Phrase it however reasonably you like, its still basically a conspiracy theory. The same one that Michael Moore and co have been piping for a long time. However like all good conspiracy theories, its pretty low on actual evidence. And now that we're post war in Iraq we even have the added evidence of US oil companies not doing particularly well out of oil contracts being awarded there.
The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Phrase it however reasonably you like, its still basically a conspiracy theory. The same one that Michael Moore and co have been piping for a long time. However like all good conspiracy theories, its pretty low on actual evidence. And now that we're post war in Iraq we even have the added evidence of US oil companies not doing particularly well out of oil contracts being awarded there.
And this is why I idolise garin....... ;)
Garin wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Phrase it however reasonably you like, its still basically a conspiracy theory. The same one that Michael Moore and co have been piping for a long time. However like all good conspiracy theories, its pretty low on actual evidence. And now that we're post war in Iraq we even have the added evidence of US oil companies not doing particularly well out of oil contracts being awarded there.[/i]
You can label it a conspiricy theory if it makes you feel better, it's just a label after all. We're also low on evidence that it was because the US Government was afraid of attacks, so that's a conspiracy theory too.
In fact the only things we know are:
- It wasn't sanctioned
- It wasn't absolutely necessary (though many argue that it was a good choice despite it kicking off large scale terrorist attacks)
pb wrote:
[i]The mistake people make about mentioning Oil as a factor is that it's to do with money to the oil companies and the consumer, it isn't. The stake was that the US Oil Companies (and to a certain extent UK Oil Companies) wanted to be involved with the Middle Eastern Oil decisions. They were being kept out of the countries running the oil business from the source and wanted in. It was these same companies that bankrolled both Bush presidencies and their presidential campaigns so both presidents would have been under a lot of pressure from the companies to provide action.
Phrase it however reasonably you like, its still basically a conspiracy theory. The same one that Michael Moore and co have been piping for a long time. However like all good conspiracy theories, its pretty low on actual evidence. And now that we're post war in Iraq we even have the added evidence of US oil companies not doing particularly well out of oil contracts being awarded there.[/i]
You can label it a conspiricy theory if it makes you feel better, it's just a label after all. We're also low on evidence that it was because the US Government was afraid of attacks, so that's a conspiracy theory too.
In fact the only things we know are:
- It wasn't sanctioned
- It wasn't absolutely necessary (though many argue that it was a good choice despite it kicking off large scale terrorist attacks)
Warhunt wrote:
Sonic Chris wrote:
[i]When I refer to England, I'm referring to the terror threat, rather than actual involvement in the war. English cities are probably priority targets for terrorists.
London 1 Glasgow Airport 1 - 'nuff said ;)
It's not football Warhunt :P I know Chelsea are battering everyone, but sheesh.
Looking forward to the weekend, although the result could leave me feeling deflated
Sonic Chris wrote:
[i]When I refer to England, I'm referring to the terror threat, rather than actual involvement in the war. English cities are probably priority targets for terrorists.
London 1 Glasgow Airport 1 - 'nuff said ;)
It's not football Warhunt :P I know Chelsea are battering everyone, but sheesh.
Looking forward to the weekend, although the result could leave me feeling deflated
Page: