The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hearing news day in day out about America's dispute with Iraq and seeing George Bush's ugly face on tv everyday didn't really seem to phase me, as if it was all fictional.
Now suddenly, things are starting to appear more real! The world (mainly America and England because of damn butt-kissing Blair-the monkey man) is at threat of countless, thoughtless terrorist attacks, and for what? Just to overthrow one man? I'm sure that Saddam Hussein isn't the only sick-minded guy in this world. But the thing I don't understand is why we had to get involved!? Tony Blair didn't really have to partner with one of the world's greatest powers because it's plainly jeapordising the safety and innocence of many here in England. America have a reason to crack down on Saddam and terrorism, but we don't.
I do understand that Tony Blair is trying to guarantee a huge amount of security by supporting America with their dilemma, but I really don't think it's worth risking the lives of more innocent civilians, especially in the country I live in.
Now suddenly, things are starting to appear more real! The world (mainly America and England because of damn butt-kissing Blair-the monkey man) is at threat of countless, thoughtless terrorist attacks, and for what? Just to overthrow one man? I'm sure that Saddam Hussein isn't the only sick-minded guy in this world. But the thing I don't understand is why we had to get involved!? Tony Blair didn't really have to partner with one of the world's greatest powers because it's plainly jeapordising the safety and innocence of many here in England. America have a reason to crack down on Saddam and terrorism, but we don't.
I do understand that Tony Blair is trying to guarantee a huge amount of security by supporting America with their dilemma, but I really don't think it's worth risking the lives of more innocent civilians, especially in the country I live in.
Page:
Hearing news day in day out about America's dispute with Iraq and seeing George Bush's ugly face on tv everyday didn't really seem to phase me, as if it was all fictional.
Now suddenly, things are starting to appear more real! The world (mainly America and England because of damn butt-kissing Blair-the monkey man) is at threat of countless, thoughtless terrorist attacks, and for what? Just to overthrow one man? I'm sure that Saddam Hussein isn't the only sick-minded guy in this world. But the thing I don't understand is why we had to get involved!? Tony Blair didn't really have to partner with one of the world's greatest powers because it's plainly jeapordising the safety and innocence of many here in England. America have a reason to crack down on Saddam and terrorism, but we don't.
I do understand that Tony Blair is trying to guarantee a huge amount of security by supporting America with their dilemma, but I really don't think it's worth risking the lives of more innocent civilians, especially in the country I live in.
Now suddenly, things are starting to appear more real! The world (mainly America and England because of damn butt-kissing Blair-the monkey man) is at threat of countless, thoughtless terrorist attacks, and for what? Just to overthrow one man? I'm sure that Saddam Hussein isn't the only sick-minded guy in this world. But the thing I don't understand is why we had to get involved!? Tony Blair didn't really have to partner with one of the world's greatest powers because it's plainly jeapordising the safety and innocence of many here in England. America have a reason to crack down on Saddam and terrorism, but we don't.
I do understand that Tony Blair is trying to guarantee a huge amount of security by supporting America with their dilemma, but I really don't think it's worth risking the lives of more innocent civilians, especially in the country I live in.
I've started a petition to get Tony Blair to change his mind on everything. The idea is, we get enough signatures to convince him that it's in everyones' interest to encourage Bush to be more diplomatic and make a goodwill gesture.
Then Blair flies over to the U.S.A. and suggests that instead of war, we airdrop XBoxes, Big Macs with Large Fries and a complimentary copy of MAD into every Islamic Fundamentalist stronghold in the world. If this fails to convert them to western ideologies, then and only then can we go ahead and nuke 'em.
Then Blair flies over to the U.S.A. and suggests that instead of war, we airdrop XBoxes, Big Macs with Large Fries and a complimentary copy of MAD into every Islamic Fundamentalist stronghold in the world. If this fails to convert them to western ideologies, then and only then can we go ahead and nuke 'em.
Does anyone actually believe the stuff going on at Heathrow?
Looks a bit like another stunt to try and get us to want to go to war.
c58
Looks a bit like another stunt to try and get us to want to go to war.
c58
if Bush throws a stick Blair runs after it and returns it
if Bush prepared a dog basket Blair would sleep in it
if Bush had a boneo Blair would munch on it
if Bush was blind Blair would wear a lead and a fluesant (spelling?) coat
the reason Blair is following Bush is because Bush is holding his lead :D
if Bush prepared a dog basket Blair would sleep in it
if Bush had a boneo Blair would munch on it
if Bush was blind Blair would wear a lead and a fluesant (spelling?) coat
the reason Blair is following Bush is because Bush is holding his lead :D
I have a few things to say to all you Anti-War Protesters. What about Iran, Iraq was at war with them for 8 years, and for what, a million dead. What about the Kurds, over 1 million of Saddams own citizens gased. Oh, and one more thing, KUWAIT!!! He used missiles on Israil, killing yet more innocent people. From 1933 to 1939, Britain sat with our thumb's up our ar$e's whils Nazi Germany ripped Europe to shreads. Are we to do the same now?!? I hope not. Saddam has the weapons, the Kurds are proof of this. Are we to just ignore our International Morals and duties? I Back Blair and Bush!
Still think there's a chance Blair might just change his mind on the Iraq war? Well, he might - he changes his mind on just about every other subject.
But seriously, do you really think they won't go to war now that all that military power is in place. I think the USA had already decided to do this some time ago. They needed some time to get a big force in place, and they have used that same time to try and gain international support/UN, etc. So the latter was worth a try and doesn't cost anything since it takes time to get a really big force into the area anyway.
But seriously, do you really think they won't go to war now that all that military power is in place. I think the USA had already decided to do this some time ago. They needed some time to get a big force in place, and they have used that same time to try and gain international support/UN, etc. So the latter was worth a try and doesn't cost anything since it takes time to get a really big force into the area anyway.
Skarra wrote:
> I have a few things to say to all you Anti-War Protesters. What about
> Iran, Iraq was at war with them for 8 years, and for what, a million
> dead.
I thought Iran were evil too?
Didn't Bush put them in his Axis of Evil speech?
> I have a few things to say to all you Anti-War Protesters. What about
> Iran, Iraq was at war with them for 8 years, and for what, a million
> dead.
I thought Iran were evil too?
Didn't Bush put them in his Axis of Evil speech?
Don't forget North Korea!
There was a programme on Radio 4 last night about the history of the CIA.
Last night's covered Iran.
And how the CIA funded and assisted their very first coup d'etat in the late 50's to oust the then-reigning leader and replace him with The Shah, who then gave distinctly pro-US rulings and ideas.
Until there was another revolution and The Shah was ousted, Iran then became evil and bad.
Until Reagan and the "Arms for Hostages" fiasco.
And the quote from a former CIA director was "We would rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy, we have no control over that"
Get your facts right before you start spouting please Skarra.
Last night's covered Iran.
And how the CIA funded and assisted their very first coup d'etat in the late 50's to oust the then-reigning leader and replace him with The Shah, who then gave distinctly pro-US rulings and ideas.
Until there was another revolution and The Shah was ousted, Iran then became evil and bad.
Until Reagan and the "Arms for Hostages" fiasco.
And the quote from a former CIA director was "We would rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy, we have no control over that"
Get your facts right before you start spouting please Skarra.
New York Times brief synopsis about Iran and The CIA:
---
Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.
The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.
---
Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.
The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.
Page: