The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As Bush's 'war on terror' continues, i'm increasingly of the opinion that the issue of who is the real terrorist is becoming ever more blurry.
America are already bombing Iraq's military facilities, including radar sites, and by the attitude of Bush and his possee i think it's fair to say that all-out war is now inevitable.
But why? The Gulf war is over, 'unfinished business' is no legitimate reason.
What we're looking at is, in my opinion, a combination of the fear of the unknown elements of Hussein's arsenal, and Bush's desire to impose his brand of peace on the rest of the world while he looks for people to fight as he seeks avenge September 11th against anyone he can actually find.
Iraq haven't actually done anything, so far as i understand, but refuse to open their doors to the international community's weapons inspectors.
Putting aside history for a moment, a mere refusal to let anyone who asks poke around with open access to everything in the country doesn't justify war, it doesn't even prove they have anything to hide.
And does Bush think America should be the only country allowed a nuclear arsenal? Has he not personally perpetrated an equal if not greater evil by withdrawing from the international missile defence agreement as he seeks the power to kill everyone else?
That's what Bush's brand of peace seems to be - America get all military power, nobody else is allowed any, and America will dictate right and wrong, who gets to live and who is destroyed.
Tell me now, which insane dictator has plans on global domination?
Also, tell me what happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
While Iraq haven't actually *done* anything to justify a war, there can be no honour in military action.
Of course, this does have to go in the context of Hussein's character, there *is* a real argument to support pre-emptive military action.
But if such action is taken, it still defies all contemporary standards of justice, and this should be regretfully acknoledged.
If Bush spoke of this war apologetically, acknowledging that what he was planning was morally wrong, but sadly necessary, based on intelligence, for the protection of innocent lives, and if everything was done to minimise the force used and the civilian deaths incurred, then this war could be begrudgingly accepted.
But no, he walks up to the microphone with a cocky swagger to bleat another speach on how he's the sheriff of the whole dang world.
So who's the real dictator?
America are already bombing Iraq's military facilities, including radar sites, and by the attitude of Bush and his possee i think it's fair to say that all-out war is now inevitable.
But why? The Gulf war is over, 'unfinished business' is no legitimate reason.
What we're looking at is, in my opinion, a combination of the fear of the unknown elements of Hussein's arsenal, and Bush's desire to impose his brand of peace on the rest of the world while he looks for people to fight as he seeks avenge September 11th against anyone he can actually find.
Iraq haven't actually done anything, so far as i understand, but refuse to open their doors to the international community's weapons inspectors.
Putting aside history for a moment, a mere refusal to let anyone who asks poke around with open access to everything in the country doesn't justify war, it doesn't even prove they have anything to hide.
And does Bush think America should be the only country allowed a nuclear arsenal? Has he not personally perpetrated an equal if not greater evil by withdrawing from the international missile defence agreement as he seeks the power to kill everyone else?
That's what Bush's brand of peace seems to be - America get all military power, nobody else is allowed any, and America will dictate right and wrong, who gets to live and who is destroyed.
Tell me now, which insane dictator has plans on global domination?
Also, tell me what happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty?
While Iraq haven't actually *done* anything to justify a war, there can be no honour in military action.
Of course, this does have to go in the context of Hussein's character, there *is* a real argument to support pre-emptive military action.
But if such action is taken, it still defies all contemporary standards of justice, and this should be regretfully acknoledged.
If Bush spoke of this war apologetically, acknowledging that what he was planning was morally wrong, but sadly necessary, based on intelligence, for the protection of innocent lives, and if everything was done to minimise the force used and the civilian deaths incurred, then this war could be begrudgingly accepted.
But no, he walks up to the microphone with a cocky swagger to bleat another speach on how he's the sheriff of the whole dang world.
So who's the real dictator?
Page:
The Earth Summit was, and is, a complete waste of time. Tony should never have bothered even getting on the plane.
Most commentators on SKY, FOX and CNN, and even the BBC have pointed out that of those countries who signed up to Kyoto very few are actually doing what they said they'd do.
Nelson Mandela seemed more concerned about Iraq and Star and Stripes bashing than the environment.
Mugabe used it to accuse Britain of numerous things whlst the majority of African nations expressed support for Mugabe.
Russia is trying to sell it's pollution quotas despite that fact it already exceeds them.
France, Germany and several other European states made yet more anti US remarks.
NGO's complained they'd been excluded too much having missed the point that decisions for a nation are made by elected officials/dicatators and not whoever had the money to fly out with their own special interest.
Thousands of demonstrators turned up to cause trouble, sorry, protest about anti globalisation, missing the point that it is thanks to globalisation that most of them can fly their and be seen on tv around the world.
All in all entertaining but useless. The summit is the most pointless thing going, after UN security councils of course. Everyone turns up and thinks they're doing their bit just by being there. Big bad Bush isn't there so he's evil......NOT.
Renewable energy isn't viable, yet, and cannot replace oil.
Public transport doesn't work to reduce pollution, nor does cycling.
Cutting emissions is more than signing a piece of paper promising to.
Oil will be in good supply for a long time yet and there's plenty more to find and use, it will and still is, remain the strategic fuel.
Bush, and anyone wihtout green blinkers on, sees this, and that's why the Earth Summit is a waste of time because those who are there are just there to get their own advantages. As for Africa....after the show of support for Mugabe you have to wonder why we should care.....let Mugabe run their economy and see where it gets them.
~~Belldandy~~
Most commentators on SKY, FOX and CNN, and even the BBC have pointed out that of those countries who signed up to Kyoto very few are actually doing what they said they'd do.
Nelson Mandela seemed more concerned about Iraq and Star and Stripes bashing than the environment.
Mugabe used it to accuse Britain of numerous things whlst the majority of African nations expressed support for Mugabe.
Russia is trying to sell it's pollution quotas despite that fact it already exceeds them.
France, Germany and several other European states made yet more anti US remarks.
NGO's complained they'd been excluded too much having missed the point that decisions for a nation are made by elected officials/dicatators and not whoever had the money to fly out with their own special interest.
Thousands of demonstrators turned up to cause trouble, sorry, protest about anti globalisation, missing the point that it is thanks to globalisation that most of them can fly their and be seen on tv around the world.
All in all entertaining but useless. The summit is the most pointless thing going, after UN security councils of course. Everyone turns up and thinks they're doing their bit just by being there. Big bad Bush isn't there so he's evil......NOT.
Renewable energy isn't viable, yet, and cannot replace oil.
Public transport doesn't work to reduce pollution, nor does cycling.
Cutting emissions is more than signing a piece of paper promising to.
Oil will be in good supply for a long time yet and there's plenty more to find and use, it will and still is, remain the strategic fuel.
Bush, and anyone wihtout green blinkers on, sees this, and that's why the Earth Summit is a waste of time because those who are there are just there to get their own advantages. As for Africa....after the show of support for Mugabe you have to wonder why we should care.....let Mugabe run their economy and see where it gets them.
~~Belldandy~~
without getting controversial here (naturally) :
George Bush now runs the western world, and Tony Blair is his lap dog.
If george bush wants a war, we will be joining them. George Bush needs the stern talking to, not saddam.
Where will bush pick next? Northern Ireland?
George Bush now runs the western world, and Tony Blair is his lap dog.
If george bush wants a war, we will be joining them. George Bush needs the stern talking to, not saddam.
Where will bush pick next? Northern Ireland?
...envolve the least work*,* to 'beieve' in...
sorry. probably doesn't make much difference, but might hlp clarify what i'm saying.
sorry. probably doesn't make much difference, but might hlp clarify what i'm saying.
Today it struck me, how blair actually physically looks more like bush.
I think it's his hair, and the cut of his suit.
I find it quite disturbing, to think that our prime minister seems to be looking to bush as a role-model.
Still, despite bush sticking two fingers up at the international community with his absence from the world summit (including some time on *vacation* at his ranch), it's kind of good to know someone's trying to keep america in touch with global environmental politics (blair's statement yesterday).
Even if he does choose to blame faults with kyoto before he'll criticise america.
Back to the topic, it strikes me as very odd that while taking on his self-appointed role of global enforcer, bush hasn't changed his unwillingness to interact with the rest of the world.
I'd expected the international disregard of kyoto and missile defence to have changed somewhat. But to me, the world summit just proves that bush still won't interact peacefully with other nations. His continued failure to take serious environmental action, but to pick the scientific minorities, whos' ideals envolve the least, work to 'believe' in shows he's happy to be careless in damaging the rest of the world.
So what other conclusion can we draw but that he figures 'screw the rest of the world, and if they cause trouble, we'll bomb them into order.'
I think it's his hair, and the cut of his suit.
I find it quite disturbing, to think that our prime minister seems to be looking to bush as a role-model.
Still, despite bush sticking two fingers up at the international community with his absence from the world summit (including some time on *vacation* at his ranch), it's kind of good to know someone's trying to keep america in touch with global environmental politics (blair's statement yesterday).
Even if he does choose to blame faults with kyoto before he'll criticise america.
Back to the topic, it strikes me as very odd that while taking on his self-appointed role of global enforcer, bush hasn't changed his unwillingness to interact with the rest of the world.
I'd expected the international disregard of kyoto and missile defence to have changed somewhat. But to me, the world summit just proves that bush still won't interact peacefully with other nations. His continued failure to take serious environmental action, but to pick the scientific minorities, whos' ideals envolve the least, work to 'believe' in shows he's happy to be careless in damaging the rest of the world.
So what other conclusion can we draw but that he figures 'screw the rest of the world, and if they cause trouble, we'll bomb them into order.'
Vast Luckystar wrote:
> I prefer to call it state terrorism.
Well, look at it like this, is it terrorism that effects the world economy and indiscriminately targets anyone ? Whilst not right, the actions in Tibet by China haven't been directed at the whole tibetan population but at single and groups of, activists.
It's pretty much a no brainer to see that no Western Government is gooing to do more than wrist slap China at best.
I'm sure Blair, Bush, and most leaders know what China does but there are times when the leader's of nations have to choose between the greater and lesser evil. The greater concerns with China are a)Taiwan b) The Russian Border. An invasion or atack by China on either of these two will make the Gulf War seem like a fight in the playground......
> I prefer to call it state terrorism.
Well, look at it like this, is it terrorism that effects the world economy and indiscriminately targets anyone ? Whilst not right, the actions in Tibet by China haven't been directed at the whole tibetan population but at single and groups of, activists.
It's pretty much a no brainer to see that no Western Government is gooing to do more than wrist slap China at best.
I'm sure Blair, Bush, and most leaders know what China does but there are times when the leader's of nations have to choose between the greater and lesser evil. The greater concerns with China are a)Taiwan b) The Russian Border. An invasion or atack by China on either of these two will make the Gulf War seem like a fight in the playground......
I feel that Bush is pressurising other countries to agree with it and those who don't aren't directly attacked but are affected in slightly more indirect ways.
Still, Saddam still does have a nuclear arsenal, and an insane mind.
Still, Saddam still does have a nuclear arsenal, and an insane mind.
Belldandy wrote:
> Vast Luckystar wrote:
> China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush
> isn't concerned.
>
> Yes it has, that's a human rights violation, not terrorism though.
I prefer to call it state terrorism.
> Vast Luckystar wrote:
> China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush
> isn't concerned.
>
> Yes it has, that's a human rights violation, not terrorism though.
I prefer to call it state terrorism.
Vast Luckystar wrote:
> China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush isn't
> concerned.
Yes it has, that's a human rights violation, not terrorism though.
> Is Bush trying to root out IRA supporters and contributors living in
> America? No.
At the moment a ceasefire is in effect *laughs* and America has seized funds at our request where we could prove the money was linked to Irish terrorist groups. Note - we cannot just target the IRA, it's either all or nothing. The British Government and the Irish problem is exactly the example that proves in some cases diplomacy doesn't work. Ever since the Good Friday Agreement ceasefires have come and gone, each one giving the terrorists time to rearm and retrain, civilians die, are murdered, shot at, riots every marching season....all because we insist on diplomacy nad pulled the army back. Weapons cache location are known by General Deshasterlie (UN decommmisioning chap) and his team inspect them...erm sorry, why not just have our soldiers obliterate them ??
The war on terrorism is selective, probably because the majority of the public requires about 3000 civilian deaths before military action takes place. If Iraq were to suitcase nuke london tonight then the majority would swing in favour of action immediately, every show on tv would be calling for all out war and nuclear tipped cruise missiles to reign down on Iraq - which wouldn't be the right answer to the Iraq problem.
Still, with tony's speech this afternoon, we've given stong support to the USA, two fingers to Europe ( :) ),
~~Belldandy~~
> China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush isn't
> concerned.
Yes it has, that's a human rights violation, not terrorism though.
> Is Bush trying to root out IRA supporters and contributors living in
> America? No.
At the moment a ceasefire is in effect *laughs* and America has seized funds at our request where we could prove the money was linked to Irish terrorist groups. Note - we cannot just target the IRA, it's either all or nothing. The British Government and the Irish problem is exactly the example that proves in some cases diplomacy doesn't work. Ever since the Good Friday Agreement ceasefires have come and gone, each one giving the terrorists time to rearm and retrain, civilians die, are murdered, shot at, riots every marching season....all because we insist on diplomacy nad pulled the army back. Weapons cache location are known by General Deshasterlie (UN decommmisioning chap) and his team inspect them...erm sorry, why not just have our soldiers obliterate them ??
The war on terrorism is selective, probably because the majority of the public requires about 3000 civilian deaths before military action takes place. If Iraq were to suitcase nuke london tonight then the majority would swing in favour of action immediately, every show on tv would be calling for all out war and nuclear tipped cruise missiles to reign down on Iraq - which wouldn't be the right answer to the Iraq problem.
Still, with tony's speech this afternoon, we've given stong support to the USA, two fingers to Europe ( :) ),
~~Belldandy~~
Looking at the world through Bush's eyes, you don't see land ripe for conquering, but instead a whole world in disarray, civil war, dictatorship, oppression and famine.
Bush has taken it upon himself to make the USA the global emergency services - including police.
Why?
Well, name another country equipped to do the job. And for a good part of it, the job does need doing.
I'm not supporting the actions of the USA, just hoping that some of you people will understand it a little better, instead of just arguing against it because you think it's wrong.
Bush has taken it upon himself to make the USA the global emergency services - including police.
Why?
Well, name another country equipped to do the job. And for a good part of it, the job does need doing.
I'm not supporting the actions of the USA, just hoping that some of you people will understand it a little better, instead of just arguing against it because you think it's wrong.
The 'war' on terrorism is an excuse for the bloodthirsty American hawks to get vengeance on selective targets. Iraq? Because Bush Snr. couldn't get the job done himself. Have you also noticed how many suspects include Arab and Muslim countries? Not China? Why not? I understand that many Arab countries are habouring terrorists, but America has to eradicate all terrorism, such as the evil 'Real IRA'.
Page: