The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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...anyone following the news, especially Sky, CNN and Fox, will probably have noticed that there's major hints that a conflict with Iraq, led by a US/UK led force, is becoming a distinct possibility.
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Page:
Well, I'm not the most pro-American person you'll encounter, but I'd agree with you.
The thing is, the likes of Saddam do need removing (my opinion) but I'd like it not to be a long, drawn-out battle like last time. If - or rather, when - they go after him, I'd like to see a large force used, to completely overwhelm Iraqi troops and leave the result of the operation in no doubt.
Ideally, I'd like it to be unannounced. Just hit them, do the job, and get out again. None of this "we're coming for you" nonsense which gives him the chance to go into hiding.
The thing is, the likes of Saddam do need removing (my opinion) but I'd like it not to be a long, drawn-out battle like last time. If - or rather, when - they go after him, I'd like to see a large force used, to completely overwhelm Iraqi troops and leave the result of the operation in no doubt.
Ideally, I'd like it to be unannounced. Just hit them, do the job, and get out again. None of this "we're coming for you" nonsense which gives him the chance to go into hiding.
hmmm....im not sure. perhaps we should leave it to the politicians. but i think its to much of a risk to go into iraq. the unreliability of politicians nowadays could backfire in their plans.
So...anyone following the news, especially Sky, CNN and Fox, will probably have noticed that there's major hints that a conflict with Iraq, led by a US/UK led force, is becoming a distinct possibility.
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Page: