The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I know what you're saying - I don't hate America as a country. I simply dislike the way that the government has proclaimed themselves worldwide peacekeepers. If they are so concerned about the planet then maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of protecting their own economy.
Many of America's military actions are focused on their own personal/financial gain. While I support their actions in the Middle East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I mean?
It's nice to be back :D
Many of America's military actions are focused on their own personal/financial gain. While I support their actions in the Middle East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I mean?
It's nice to be back :D
I'm with small frog on this one. Remember that little scrap World War 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid, but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European Conflict". In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took the west against China and Russia, remember. And Vietnam, their heart was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice fields, yeah, real good idea.
But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair, sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where. If there the biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our over stretched army deals with. If they do the jobs nobody else wants, i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the Sabre if it suits them.
But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair, sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where. If there the biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our over stretched army deals with. If they do the jobs nobody else wants, i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the Sabre if it suits them.
Small Frog wrote:
>If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of
> protecting their own economy.
Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry, somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution, when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them ! Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
>
> Many of America's military actions are focused on their own
> personal/financial gain.
Any country only engages in military action when it's own interests are at stake, America is just the more obvious one. Why did we go to war in the Falklands....oil and the Antarctic.....Sierra Leone ? Possible oil, Diamonds, plus it's a nice staging area for the rest of Africa..... SAS and the iranian embassy in London ? Pretty good demonstration of the unit... My point is that underlying the moral reasons of a conflict it is nearly always for gain of some kind that a country goes to war or conflict. America isn't perfect.....but neither is she the only one !
>While I support their actions in the Middle
> East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I
> mean?
Kinda....bit of a dancing with the devil thing going on eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
>If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of
> protecting their own economy.
Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry, somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution, when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them ! Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
>
> Many of America's military actions are focused on their own
> personal/financial gain.
Any country only engages in military action when it's own interests are at stake, America is just the more obvious one. Why did we go to war in the Falklands....oil and the Antarctic.....Sierra Leone ? Possible oil, Diamonds, plus it's a nice staging area for the rest of Africa..... SAS and the iranian embassy in London ? Pretty good demonstration of the unit... My point is that underlying the moral reasons of a conflict it is nearly always for gain of some kind that a country goes to war or conflict. America isn't perfect.....but neither is she the only one !
>While I support their actions in the Middle
> East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I
> mean?
Kinda....bit of a dancing with the devil thing going on eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
Skarra wrote:
>Remember that little scrap World War
> 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and
> World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid,
> but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European
> Conflict".
One of the problems of democracy is that the people who vote you in can vote you out...you're saying that an elected official should go against massive opposition and do something ? The result would be his political destruction. New evidence now shows that Pearl Harbour "could" have been prevented by intel from a norweigian vessel, however the vessel was destroyed in port as it docked by UK intel agents, and the attack was allowed to hit Pearl Harbour, and the USA came into the war under Roosevelt with massive public support. Even in the early days, once France fell America supplied ammunition, vehicles, and men to help us, not forgetting ships as well.
>In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took
> the west against China and Russia, remember.
Er no, wrong history. Korea was a UN action but the US had to supply most of the manpower as everyone else was still badly hit by WW2 aftermath....
> And Vietnam, their heart
> was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice
> fields, yeah, real good idea.
In Vietnam the line between Civilian and enemy was blurred, a civilian could work the fields by day and take up a weapon at night and attack US forces....
>
> But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would
> pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans
> because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair,
> sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where.
Ah, another one of my pet ideas here, the UK should have pushed to make its troops exempt from prosecution too !
>If there the
> biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our
> over stretched army deals with.
The US is currently guaranteeing security across the middle east, is conducting known operations in Afghanistan, india, Pakistan, Kosovoe and the Balkans, Georgia, Indonesia, homeland security.....need I go on, not to mention patrolling no fly zones in Iraq, Korea and providing security for Taiwan....
>If they do the jobs nobody else wants,
> i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at
> Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the
> Sabre if it suits them.
So the US government funded the IRA ? Don't think so, US citizens did, its called freedom, and if our security services could actually do something they'd have proven it and the US would have tkaen action, we couldn't prove it, ever, so the US cannot take action - what do you want them to do ? Sieera Leone.....yay for us....read my other post below this one to see why were there....
~~Belldandy~~
>Remember that little scrap World War
> 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and
> World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid,
> but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European
> Conflict".
One of the problems of democracy is that the people who vote you in can vote you out...you're saying that an elected official should go against massive opposition and do something ? The result would be his political destruction. New evidence now shows that Pearl Harbour "could" have been prevented by intel from a norweigian vessel, however the vessel was destroyed in port as it docked by UK intel agents, and the attack was allowed to hit Pearl Harbour, and the USA came into the war under Roosevelt with massive public support. Even in the early days, once France fell America supplied ammunition, vehicles, and men to help us, not forgetting ships as well.
>In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took
> the west against China and Russia, remember.
Er no, wrong history. Korea was a UN action but the US had to supply most of the manpower as everyone else was still badly hit by WW2 aftermath....
> And Vietnam, their heart
> was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice
> fields, yeah, real good idea.
In Vietnam the line between Civilian and enemy was blurred, a civilian could work the fields by day and take up a weapon at night and attack US forces....
>
> But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would
> pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans
> because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair,
> sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where.
Ah, another one of my pet ideas here, the UK should have pushed to make its troops exempt from prosecution too !
>If there the
> biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our
> over stretched army deals with.
The US is currently guaranteeing security across the middle east, is conducting known operations in Afghanistan, india, Pakistan, Kosovoe and the Balkans, Georgia, Indonesia, homeland security.....need I go on, not to mention patrolling no fly zones in Iraq, Korea and providing security for Taiwan....
>If they do the jobs nobody else wants,
> i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at
> Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the
> Sabre if it suits them.
So the US government funded the IRA ? Don't think so, US citizens did, its called freedom, and if our security services could actually do something they'd have proven it and the US would have tkaen action, we couldn't prove it, ever, so the US cannot take action - what do you want them to do ? Sieera Leone.....yay for us....read my other post below this one to see why were there....
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Small Frog wrote:
> >If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead
> of
> protecting their own economy.
>
> Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere
> who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry,
> somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our
> wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty
> that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution,
> when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute
> more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them !
> Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're
> priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is
> doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying
> that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
So protecting your country comes before protecting the world? Whether Bush believes it or not, pollution is damaging our world, and that's going to effect the whole planet. And why shouldn't we limit pollution when we have technological advances to help do so. In the West we can limit pollution, there is more technology to help us do this, and if the US signed that agreement then companies would be forced to advance the technology to aid reducing pollution even further. And of course third world countries shouldn't have such tight regulations on pollution, one they don't have the technology to be cleaner, and two they can't afford to be, while in the West we certainly can afford it, but we're just too bloody apathetic to do anything, and too worried that businesses already making huge profits will have to take a slight cut in their profit margins. It all comes down to what is valued higher, the economy of a country, or the cleanliness of the planet we all have to live in. And if our pollution gets too much we're all gonna know about it in a bad way...
> Small Frog wrote:
> >If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead
> of
> protecting their own economy.
>
> Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere
> who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry,
> somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our
> wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty
> that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution,
> when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute
> more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them !
> Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're
> priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is
> doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying
> that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
So protecting your country comes before protecting the world? Whether Bush believes it or not, pollution is damaging our world, and that's going to effect the whole planet. And why shouldn't we limit pollution when we have technological advances to help do so. In the West we can limit pollution, there is more technology to help us do this, and if the US signed that agreement then companies would be forced to advance the technology to aid reducing pollution even further. And of course third world countries shouldn't have such tight regulations on pollution, one they don't have the technology to be cleaner, and two they can't afford to be, while in the West we certainly can afford it, but we're just too bloody apathetic to do anything, and too worried that businesses already making huge profits will have to take a slight cut in their profit margins. It all comes down to what is valued higher, the economy of a country, or the cleanliness of the planet we all have to live in. And if our pollution gets too much we're all gonna know about it in a bad way...
Why is it any thread with me and you in always turns in to an argument over America?
:D
:D
I find it amusing that you're debating a George Michael song like it has any merit whatsoever - controversial or not.
He could drape himself in the Stars & Stripes and defecate on an Osama lookalike, it doesn't change the fact he doesn't matter on any level.
He could drape himself in the Stars & Stripes and defecate on an Osama lookalike, it doesn't change the fact he doesn't matter on any level.
True. The fact is, the songs just sucks beyond belief - totally devoid of any hooks, melody or anything of merit at all.
Belldandy wrote:
> a load of crap about gw bush
So, by pushing to protect his nation above all else, Bush only proves that he is in fact nothing more then a typical and undeniable paranoid human being. It is paranoia that has led mankind to the brink of self-destruction (and we ARE on the brink of self-destruction, it'll just take a hundred years or so to pan out) and it is the selfish paranoia of men like Bush that will push the whole planet over the edge.
This is no longer a planet for individuals, be they individual people, individual firms or individual nations. We have no choice but to share this planet, and unless we can all get on amicably, we doom ourselves to ultimate extinction. Look at Europe, slowly banding together with the ideal in mind of eventual complete unity. Legislation like the Kyoto agreement hanging around helps the WORLD reach an even footing, whilst also promoting the need for cleaner and more re-usable energy sources.
Bush not signing it means only that he wants to keep his country as top dog at any cost to the planet. It's thinking like that that resists change, resists equity and opposes prolonged survival for the species as a whole.
We as a society need to change, damn it we HAVE GOT TO change. Arrogance and selfishness have no place in the future of mankind simply because we don't have enough room to satisfy wants for everyone.
People like Bush have to stop thinking about what they want. What they need, sure, they can have that. But for wanting? How about wanting the world to be an even playing field? Wanting everyone in the world to have the opportunity to show they can make a difference? Wanting to restrict ourselves in ways which ultimately make us better? Wanting to help the human race survive for more than the mere handful of decades it has left?
The prospects for the future of our species are bleak enough without powerhungry warlords throwing weight around to increase their already more than affluent share of the world. Get ready to change, or get ready to die.
IB
> a load of crap about gw bush
So, by pushing to protect his nation above all else, Bush only proves that he is in fact nothing more then a typical and undeniable paranoid human being. It is paranoia that has led mankind to the brink of self-destruction (and we ARE on the brink of self-destruction, it'll just take a hundred years or so to pan out) and it is the selfish paranoia of men like Bush that will push the whole planet over the edge.
This is no longer a planet for individuals, be they individual people, individual firms or individual nations. We have no choice but to share this planet, and unless we can all get on amicably, we doom ourselves to ultimate extinction. Look at Europe, slowly banding together with the ideal in mind of eventual complete unity. Legislation like the Kyoto agreement hanging around helps the WORLD reach an even footing, whilst also promoting the need for cleaner and more re-usable energy sources.
Bush not signing it means only that he wants to keep his country as top dog at any cost to the planet. It's thinking like that that resists change, resists equity and opposes prolonged survival for the species as a whole.
We as a society need to change, damn it we HAVE GOT TO change. Arrogance and selfishness have no place in the future of mankind simply because we don't have enough room to satisfy wants for everyone.
People like Bush have to stop thinking about what they want. What they need, sure, they can have that. But for wanting? How about wanting the world to be an even playing field? Wanting everyone in the world to have the opportunity to show they can make a difference? Wanting to restrict ourselves in ways which ultimately make us better? Wanting to help the human race survive for more than the mere handful of decades it has left?
The prospects for the future of our species are bleak enough without powerhungry warlords throwing weight around to increase their already more than affluent share of the world. Get ready to change, or get ready to die.
IB
George Panithaniakos still sucks as a musician, nevermind his cack handed attempts at political commentary.
"Club Tropicana drinks are freeeeeeee....under the Jubilee pressure group of 2001...there's enough for everyone...even underprivileged farmhands from Mexico"
Georgey is no more suited to anything serious than Zak De La Rocha leaning on a piano in a white tux being all "Ladies....what a night for romaaaaance"
"Club Tropicana drinks are freeeeeeee....under the Jubilee pressure group of 2001...there's enough for everyone...even underprivileged farmhands from Mexico"
Georgey is no more suited to anything serious than Zak De La Rocha leaning on a piano in a white tux being all "Ladies....what a night for romaaaaance"
Page: