The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Apart from it being crap, Am i the only one who things its not a very contraversial song, due to only 3 or 4 words in the whole ong. Its a lame attempt to keep sales high.
Page:
2DTV did the video and I love the sock puppet/Bush thing... song is awful and controversial my arrse.
From George Micheal to the Koyoto summit.
Wow.
Wow.
Oh, I love this. I really do.
Some people like America and their policies.
Some people don't.
Go figure. ;D
Some people like America and their policies.
Some people don't.
Go figure. ;D
Goatboy wrote:
> None of this changes the fact that "Shoot The Dog" is a
> pisspoor song, regardless of his Chomsky-like attempts at satire.
Well obviously it's a bad song, I doubt George Michael would even have a clue who Chomsky is.....
~~Belldandy~~
> None of this changes the fact that "Shoot The Dog" is a
> pisspoor song, regardless of his Chomsky-like attempts at satire.
Well obviously it's a bad song, I doubt George Michael would even have a clue who Chomsky is.....
~~Belldandy~~
None of this changes the fact that "Shoot The Dog" is a pisspoor song, regardless of his Chomsky-like attempts at satire.
Skarra wrote:
>US Army general Pattern carried on, almost to
>China.
Yes, under his own instinct, against orders...which was why he was replaced by LT Gen Matthew Ridgeway after UN forces were pushed back.
> I didn't say the US government supported the IRA, i said, quite
> clearly, US FIRMS, supported the IRA, which they did, it's a fact.
A fact yes, but one that Brit intel couldn't porve, we knew money was coming in, but from whom and to whom.... how do you prosecute a case like that ?
> Oh, and by the way, Pearl Harbour, 3 US destroyers detected Japanise
> mini-subs hours before the attack. They also intercepted at least 6
> radio transmissions to Jap forces, but US naval intel ordered, yes,
> ordered, it to be ignored. Plus, three days before the attack, they
> knew the Jap ambassador in Washington was to declare War, but still
> nothing was to be done. They even knew the Jap carrier fleet was
> sailing towards Pearl, but still, nothing done. It wasn't just us who
> kept it quiet.
28 November 1941, Dutch vessel K-XVII sight Japanes fleet on a course that brings them smack into Pearl Harbour, they contact Dutch Royal Navy Far Eastern Command but it is intercepted by British intel services - only four people are known to have seen this intercept apart from the vessel's crew - Churchill, Roosevely, General Major Desmond Morton of Brit intel, General Donovan US intel. If Pearl HArbour was alerted to the attack then the Japanese cosulate and Japanese civilians on Hawaii could alert Japan whou would cancel the attack, and America would never enter the war until Britain fell to Germany, and then it would be too late to retake Europe. By not alerting Pearl Harbour, America came into the war. The facts you talk about are true, but not entirely...the radio messages were not clearly an attack fleet and gave no indication of size, and as for the rest, Ive made it clear why the President made sure any attack on Pearl Harbour was kept quiet.
>
> The ships they gave us, 15 World War 1 destroyers, in exchange for
> British islands in the Pacific, yeah, real fair isn't it!
Well those islands were taken by force from native islanders, where as the ships we got were built and paid for by US $, fair I think. These ships were to protect shipping lanes so age isn;t a factor, they could deliver depth charges and that's all that mattered.
>
> By the way, we did have to pay for all the other stuff. So what if
> Roosevelt wanted to join in, well over half the population in America
> didn't.
Before Pearl Harbour it was 80% actually, after Pearl Harbour it was like 90-95%. of course we had to pay for the stuff ! No one else could supply us with it at anywhere near affordable prices and it was a big political move for the US to even offer it us.
> Don't quote History if it can be flawed.
Touche'e
~~Belldandy~~
>US Army general Pattern carried on, almost to
>China.
Yes, under his own instinct, against orders...which was why he was replaced by LT Gen Matthew Ridgeway after UN forces were pushed back.
> I didn't say the US government supported the IRA, i said, quite
> clearly, US FIRMS, supported the IRA, which they did, it's a fact.
A fact yes, but one that Brit intel couldn't porve, we knew money was coming in, but from whom and to whom.... how do you prosecute a case like that ?
> Oh, and by the way, Pearl Harbour, 3 US destroyers detected Japanise
> mini-subs hours before the attack. They also intercepted at least 6
> radio transmissions to Jap forces, but US naval intel ordered, yes,
> ordered, it to be ignored. Plus, three days before the attack, they
> knew the Jap ambassador in Washington was to declare War, but still
> nothing was to be done. They even knew the Jap carrier fleet was
> sailing towards Pearl, but still, nothing done. It wasn't just us who
> kept it quiet.
28 November 1941, Dutch vessel K-XVII sight Japanes fleet on a course that brings them smack into Pearl Harbour, they contact Dutch Royal Navy Far Eastern Command but it is intercepted by British intel services - only four people are known to have seen this intercept apart from the vessel's crew - Churchill, Roosevely, General Major Desmond Morton of Brit intel, General Donovan US intel. If Pearl HArbour was alerted to the attack then the Japanese cosulate and Japanese civilians on Hawaii could alert Japan whou would cancel the attack, and America would never enter the war until Britain fell to Germany, and then it would be too late to retake Europe. By not alerting Pearl Harbour, America came into the war. The facts you talk about are true, but not entirely...the radio messages were not clearly an attack fleet and gave no indication of size, and as for the rest, Ive made it clear why the President made sure any attack on Pearl Harbour was kept quiet.
>
> The ships they gave us, 15 World War 1 destroyers, in exchange for
> British islands in the Pacific, yeah, real fair isn't it!
Well those islands were taken by force from native islanders, where as the ships we got were built and paid for by US $, fair I think. These ships were to protect shipping lanes so age isn;t a factor, they could deliver depth charges and that's all that mattered.
>
> By the way, we did have to pay for all the other stuff. So what if
> Roosevelt wanted to join in, well over half the population in America
> didn't.
Before Pearl Harbour it was 80% actually, after Pearl Harbour it was like 90-95%. of course we had to pay for the stuff ! No one else could supply us with it at anywhere near affordable prices and it was a big political move for the US to even offer it us.
> Don't quote History if it can be flawed.
Touche'e
~~Belldandy~~
Insane Bartender wrote:
>And as for Europe banding together
> to keep the poorer nations out? You must be missing something, because
> half of what they do is try to make it easier to work with the poorer
> nations.
Which would be why the EU is currently drafting legislation to make sure that new member countries from the East can be granted aid under the Common Agricultural Policy then ?
>As for subsidies in eastern europe, we already provide the
> peacekeeping force that's keeping half of it together,
Er...lets see, peace keeping force in the Balkans and....er, oh dear there isn't another peace keeping force in Europe. incidentally it wasn't until NATO started air strikes against the serbian forces in 1999 that the situation even started to improve, and that was against UN wishes, but NATO ignored them....
> Are you sick? The world needs America to rule as top dog? I think not.
Nope, quite sane actually. Lets say that, as you wish, America isn't top dog tomorrow morning. Great eh ? If that happens then, for starters, enrol in a chinese class because within days the Chinese will have taken Taiwan, and be several hundred miles into Siberia, giving them control of the world's only other untapped oil supply. Iraq will almost certainly reinvade Kuwait and possibly launch missiles against Israel, who will retaliate with bio/nuclear force as only American pressure stopped them doing this during the Gulf War, once Israel does that the rest of the Middle East will fragment and you can watch the region go up in smoke. With oil supplies cut to the west essential services will begin to stop, power cuts, food shortages....... still America won't be top dog.
> And as for the "great british empire" we actually gave most
> of it up. Forget not we were among the first to abolish slavery,
> despite the fact that our empire was built on it.
We didn't give anything up out of generosity, in America we were effectively beaten to a pulp and forced to sign the Treaty Of Paris, we then gave it another go a few years after that and got trashed again. In India, Iraq, and all the other countries native people began insurgency wars against us and made life hell, they fought for independenca and won it. Abolishing slavery ? Yeah we did, if you were an Arab Slave Trader then you were doing something illegal, if you were a white man in Africa however, that was fine......the first anti slavery laws were aimed at Arab Slave Traders who were taking Europe's "Stock" of slaves from Africa. Between the 19th-early 20th century, Europe turned a blind eye to Belgiums colony in Africa, that is estimated to have killed several million native Africans.
> Population control isn't an answer to everything, ultimately, you
> can't control population with removing human rights. So although
> technology may keep us fed, it can't keep us all accomodated
> indefinitely. And you keep quoting what people thought a few hundred
> years ago - a few hundred years ago they didn't have a damn clue.
And we have a clue now ? We assume that a few hundred years makes us better when in real fact we're not so different and the issues we face are not so different either. They appear different but they're not.
> It's quite plain that you want to see Bush go ahead and carve the USA
> it's little niche in the world. Well that may seem all well and good,
> but eventually greed leads only to destruction. If we haven't learned
> that by now, we're doomed as a species anyway.
Er yeah, right, any proof of that ? Nope. Every country has it's niches in the world, even the UK... in fact the reason why we have such a intel service and Special Forces units is to allow the UK to keep a niche far bigger than it should have in relation to it's size and population. For a small group of islands we have a worldwide reach, are central to business in Europe, ally to the greatest Western nation on earth and access to some of the most advanced technology there is.
> All very well, but Bush is throwing most of his weight right into
> USA's pockets, and it won't come out any time soon. And people like
> you will always complain that some country or other isn't getting
> help, but how many can be helped at once? How many are already being
> aided, given food, money, troops? We can only effectively help so many
> people at once. As for Saddam, he is actually still revered in many
> parts of Iraq.
Those would be the parts of Iraq with his troops around them.... I don't get his, before you were saying no one should throw their weight around, yet now you're pointing out how many places receive aid e.t.c ? Isn't that a bit contrary ? We can only do so much, but we can take action that does the job rather than keeping the PC brigade happy. Somalia for instance, instead of aid, relief workers e.t.c. and a UN force with no rules of engagement exceopt in self defence, lets have a multinational UN force with clear rules of engagement that say they can engage if civilians are under threat. At the moment, a gunman could shoot a civilian in the head in front of a UN Vehicle in Somalia and no one would be able to legally stop him. That is not a viable force, same goes for the UN in Bosnia...now when NATO went in in 1999 they didn't mess around. Targets were identified and the bombers went in, all Serbian air power was annhilated on the ground, even now war criminals are being hunted down by US/UK special forces. Thats a viable force example. More to the point, who cares if Saddam is revered, so was Hitler at one point ! The guy is developing WMDS, won't allow inspectors and continues to clearly threaten the US and her allies - unless you noticed we're a lot closer to attack than the USA and a damn site easier too. If we do not stop him now, or soon, then 10-20 years from now the next generation will have no choice not to, lets do it now and let our kids have one less enemy to worry about.
> But notice also the plain reference to USA's sudden anti-terrorist
> actions. Just like in so many wars, they don't care it's happening
> until it starts happening to them. They're not fighting a war against
> terrorism to free the world from that type of threat, they're fighting
> a war against terrorism to stop it happening to them again, and them
> alone.
Well of course...the UK is the same as well, we never have taken terrorism seriously despite the Irish groups attacking us for the past 40 odd years. It's in every free county's interest to stopp terrorism, because as we're seeing right now, uncertainty is bad for business. Lets get the terrorists, give a clear message that if you are a country that helps terrorists then you will not be given a second chance until that regime is removed, then get back to business and a semblance of peace.
> "the bad guys" oh please. What bad guys? Terrorists? They're
> almost all political or religious extremists. To them, they're not the
> bad guys. To them, they aren't evil. Criminals like murderers and
> rapists however... they know they're evil, they know they're wrong,
> and they have no political motivation, simply their own greed. They
> are the bad guys. If you want to double efforts, put them there.
Er, most country's laws say if you kill a civlian then you're a criminal, if you do it for reasons to effect a political change or for a wider cause then you're a terrorist. Murderer's and rapists do not generally have the image of knowing they are wrong, they justify their actions to mkae them seem right in their eyes, like terrorists. to the public they are evil, sure. Terrorists are not justified if they have political or religious motivations - this is a method of justification and nothing more What'd be the point in doubling efforts and fighting a war against murderers and rapists eh ? Kinda hard to do that one, and we already have law enforcement agencies to do that.
>
> Are you american by any chance? or have you got links there? Condoning
> the actions of the USA is all very well, but so vehemently supporting
> them is a fanatic trait seldom seen outside the USA itself.
Nope, I'm a very disillusioned Brit who is fed up of seeing this country becoming little more than a giant shopping centre, full of hypocrits, short memories and very little respect for anything. Look at us, we want to effectively legalise drugs, violent crime is soaring, we consider out teams success in the World Cup more important than India and Pakistan coming within hours of war, the BBC flouts an open anti american policy and even on 9/11 aired a discussion program which blatantly said America deserved to be attacked. That was appaling. We stood by and watched the Balkans become the 21st century genocide, we allow Islamic extremists to live in this country who saty within a mm of the law. We publically pretend not to be racist when a vast majority of us are in private, we allow the BNP to exist despite the fact it is linked to Combat 18, and so on and on. Sure, every country has it's faults but they usually address them, we don't we just usually sit on our island, pick fault, and carry on spending. The fault of government ? No, it is constrained by general public opinion in a country who has fallen twice for the "pop Idol" trick and where a favourite program is watching several people locked in a big enclosure and messing around.....At least since 9/11 Tony Blair is making some good decisions and addressing problems, even against general public support.
> To put it simply, sure GW Bush Jr is doing a good job of looking after
> the USA for the short term, but long term his country will suffer for
> his decisions, and ultimately so will the rest of the world.
Thats your opinion, not mine, however you only get to have that opinion because 58 years ago America decided to throw its weight around and retake Europe from the Nazi's......
~~Belldandy~~
>And as for Europe banding together
> to keep the poorer nations out? You must be missing something, because
> half of what they do is try to make it easier to work with the poorer
> nations.
Which would be why the EU is currently drafting legislation to make sure that new member countries from the East can be granted aid under the Common Agricultural Policy then ?
>As for subsidies in eastern europe, we already provide the
> peacekeeping force that's keeping half of it together,
Er...lets see, peace keeping force in the Balkans and....er, oh dear there isn't another peace keeping force in Europe. incidentally it wasn't until NATO started air strikes against the serbian forces in 1999 that the situation even started to improve, and that was against UN wishes, but NATO ignored them....
> Are you sick? The world needs America to rule as top dog? I think not.
Nope, quite sane actually. Lets say that, as you wish, America isn't top dog tomorrow morning. Great eh ? If that happens then, for starters, enrol in a chinese class because within days the Chinese will have taken Taiwan, and be several hundred miles into Siberia, giving them control of the world's only other untapped oil supply. Iraq will almost certainly reinvade Kuwait and possibly launch missiles against Israel, who will retaliate with bio/nuclear force as only American pressure stopped them doing this during the Gulf War, once Israel does that the rest of the Middle East will fragment and you can watch the region go up in smoke. With oil supplies cut to the west essential services will begin to stop, power cuts, food shortages....... still America won't be top dog.
> And as for the "great british empire" we actually gave most
> of it up. Forget not we were among the first to abolish slavery,
> despite the fact that our empire was built on it.
We didn't give anything up out of generosity, in America we were effectively beaten to a pulp and forced to sign the Treaty Of Paris, we then gave it another go a few years after that and got trashed again. In India, Iraq, and all the other countries native people began insurgency wars against us and made life hell, they fought for independenca and won it. Abolishing slavery ? Yeah we did, if you were an Arab Slave Trader then you were doing something illegal, if you were a white man in Africa however, that was fine......the first anti slavery laws were aimed at Arab Slave Traders who were taking Europe's "Stock" of slaves from Africa. Between the 19th-early 20th century, Europe turned a blind eye to Belgiums colony in Africa, that is estimated to have killed several million native Africans.
> Population control isn't an answer to everything, ultimately, you
> can't control population with removing human rights. So although
> technology may keep us fed, it can't keep us all accomodated
> indefinitely. And you keep quoting what people thought a few hundred
> years ago - a few hundred years ago they didn't have a damn clue.
And we have a clue now ? We assume that a few hundred years makes us better when in real fact we're not so different and the issues we face are not so different either. They appear different but they're not.
> It's quite plain that you want to see Bush go ahead and carve the USA
> it's little niche in the world. Well that may seem all well and good,
> but eventually greed leads only to destruction. If we haven't learned
> that by now, we're doomed as a species anyway.
Er yeah, right, any proof of that ? Nope. Every country has it's niches in the world, even the UK... in fact the reason why we have such a intel service and Special Forces units is to allow the UK to keep a niche far bigger than it should have in relation to it's size and population. For a small group of islands we have a worldwide reach, are central to business in Europe, ally to the greatest Western nation on earth and access to some of the most advanced technology there is.
> All very well, but Bush is throwing most of his weight right into
> USA's pockets, and it won't come out any time soon. And people like
> you will always complain that some country or other isn't getting
> help, but how many can be helped at once? How many are already being
> aided, given food, money, troops? We can only effectively help so many
> people at once. As for Saddam, he is actually still revered in many
> parts of Iraq.
Those would be the parts of Iraq with his troops around them.... I don't get his, before you were saying no one should throw their weight around, yet now you're pointing out how many places receive aid e.t.c ? Isn't that a bit contrary ? We can only do so much, but we can take action that does the job rather than keeping the PC brigade happy. Somalia for instance, instead of aid, relief workers e.t.c. and a UN force with no rules of engagement exceopt in self defence, lets have a multinational UN force with clear rules of engagement that say they can engage if civilians are under threat. At the moment, a gunman could shoot a civilian in the head in front of a UN Vehicle in Somalia and no one would be able to legally stop him. That is not a viable force, same goes for the UN in Bosnia...now when NATO went in in 1999 they didn't mess around. Targets were identified and the bombers went in, all Serbian air power was annhilated on the ground, even now war criminals are being hunted down by US/UK special forces. Thats a viable force example. More to the point, who cares if Saddam is revered, so was Hitler at one point ! The guy is developing WMDS, won't allow inspectors and continues to clearly threaten the US and her allies - unless you noticed we're a lot closer to attack than the USA and a damn site easier too. If we do not stop him now, or soon, then 10-20 years from now the next generation will have no choice not to, lets do it now and let our kids have one less enemy to worry about.
> But notice also the plain reference to USA's sudden anti-terrorist
> actions. Just like in so many wars, they don't care it's happening
> until it starts happening to them. They're not fighting a war against
> terrorism to free the world from that type of threat, they're fighting
> a war against terrorism to stop it happening to them again, and them
> alone.
Well of course...the UK is the same as well, we never have taken terrorism seriously despite the Irish groups attacking us for the past 40 odd years. It's in every free county's interest to stopp terrorism, because as we're seeing right now, uncertainty is bad for business. Lets get the terrorists, give a clear message that if you are a country that helps terrorists then you will not be given a second chance until that regime is removed, then get back to business and a semblance of peace.
> "the bad guys" oh please. What bad guys? Terrorists? They're
> almost all political or religious extremists. To them, they're not the
> bad guys. To them, they aren't evil. Criminals like murderers and
> rapists however... they know they're evil, they know they're wrong,
> and they have no political motivation, simply their own greed. They
> are the bad guys. If you want to double efforts, put them there.
Er, most country's laws say if you kill a civlian then you're a criminal, if you do it for reasons to effect a political change or for a wider cause then you're a terrorist. Murderer's and rapists do not generally have the image of knowing they are wrong, they justify their actions to mkae them seem right in their eyes, like terrorists. to the public they are evil, sure. Terrorists are not justified if they have political or religious motivations - this is a method of justification and nothing more What'd be the point in doubling efforts and fighting a war against murderers and rapists eh ? Kinda hard to do that one, and we already have law enforcement agencies to do that.
>
> Are you american by any chance? or have you got links there? Condoning
> the actions of the USA is all very well, but so vehemently supporting
> them is a fanatic trait seldom seen outside the USA itself.
Nope, I'm a very disillusioned Brit who is fed up of seeing this country becoming little more than a giant shopping centre, full of hypocrits, short memories and very little respect for anything. Look at us, we want to effectively legalise drugs, violent crime is soaring, we consider out teams success in the World Cup more important than India and Pakistan coming within hours of war, the BBC flouts an open anti american policy and even on 9/11 aired a discussion program which blatantly said America deserved to be attacked. That was appaling. We stood by and watched the Balkans become the 21st century genocide, we allow Islamic extremists to live in this country who saty within a mm of the law. We publically pretend not to be racist when a vast majority of us are in private, we allow the BNP to exist despite the fact it is linked to Combat 18, and so on and on. Sure, every country has it's faults but they usually address them, we don't we just usually sit on our island, pick fault, and carry on spending. The fault of government ? No, it is constrained by general public opinion in a country who has fallen twice for the "pop Idol" trick and where a favourite program is watching several people locked in a big enclosure and messing around.....At least since 9/11 Tony Blair is making some good decisions and addressing problems, even against general public support.
> To put it simply, sure GW Bush Jr is doing a good job of looking after
> the USA for the short term, but long term his country will suffer for
> his decisions, and ultimately so will the rest of the world.
Thats your opinion, not mine, however you only get to have that opinion because 58 years ago America decided to throw its weight around and retake Europe from the Nazi's......
~~Belldandy~~
belldandy, what's wrone with you. After the US and UN forces pushed North Korean forces out, US Army general Pattern carried on, almost to China. If he had stopped, we could have negotiated a peace benificial to South Korea, not back to the way it was before the North invasion.
Fair enough on Vietnam.
All the other places, don't the US have intrest's in most, if not all of them, as far as i know, they do.
I didn't say the US government supported the IRA, i said, quite clearly, US FIRMS, supported the IRA, which they did, it's a fact.
Oh, and by the way, Pearl Harbour, 3 US destroyers detected Japanise mini-subs hours before the attack. They also intercepted at least 6 radio transmissions to Jap forces, but US naval intel ordered, yes, ordered, it to be ignored. Plus, three days before the attack, they knew the Jap ambassador in Washington was to declare War, but still nothing was to be done. They even knew the Jap carrier fleet was sailing towards Pearl, but still, nothing done. It wasn't just us who kept it quiet.
The ships they gave us, 15 World War 1 destroyers, in exchange for British islands in the Pacific, yeah, real fair isn't it!
By the way, we did have to pay for all the other stuff. So what if Roosevelt wanted to join in, well over half the population in America didn't.
Don't quote History if it can be flawed.
Fair enough on Vietnam.
All the other places, don't the US have intrest's in most, if not all of them, as far as i know, they do.
I didn't say the US government supported the IRA, i said, quite clearly, US FIRMS, supported the IRA, which they did, it's a fact.
Oh, and by the way, Pearl Harbour, 3 US destroyers detected Japanise mini-subs hours before the attack. They also intercepted at least 6 radio transmissions to Jap forces, but US naval intel ordered, yes, ordered, it to be ignored. Plus, three days before the attack, they knew the Jap ambassador in Washington was to declare War, but still nothing was to be done. They even knew the Jap carrier fleet was sailing towards Pearl, but still, nothing done. It wasn't just us who kept it quiet.
The ships they gave us, 15 World War 1 destroyers, in exchange for British islands in the Pacific, yeah, real fair isn't it!
By the way, we did have to pay for all the other stuff. So what if Roosevelt wanted to join in, well over half the population in America didn't.
Don't quote History if it can be flawed.
Yeah.
George Michael sucks.
And he got busted acting the fool.
Hmmmmm...
Heh
George Michael sucks.
And he got busted acting the fool.
Hmmmmm...
Heh
Shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up.
Or at least talk about something else. Try and make it interesting this time.
Or at least talk about something else. Try and make it interesting this time.
Page: