The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
What concerns me is the way Bush's War on Terror is selective.
China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush isn't concerned.
Is Bush trying to root out IRA supporters and contributors living in America? No.
Bush's War on Terror is Pick'n'Mix Politics.
China has committed atrocities against the people of Tibet. Bush isn't concerned.
Is Bush trying to root out IRA supporters and contributors living in America? No.
Bush's War on Terror is Pick'n'Mix Politics.
Dr Duck Wrote;
> McCarthy's back. Who's next?
I don't think so. Senator McArthur's witchhunt against communists is in no way the same situation we have today.
I agree with what one previous poster has pointed out. Europe likes to just sit back, get hit, then ask for help. Pity it's not going to happen.
This morning, the Tories gave official backing to a campaign against Iraq, leaving only Charles Kennedy's bunch of imbeciles against a campaign. In America, Bush has both democratic and republican support. The lights are going from amber....to green.
The obkective is not to destory Iraq, it's cities, or anything like that. They are clear, and whatever our idiotic clergy fom the COE say, morally right. Destroy Saddam's entire regime. Destroy WMD's and any facilities with WMD research/development/equipment. Establish a new government with democratic principles.
They're pretty clear, don't you think ?
No one is saying it's going to be easy, but those naysayers were the same ones who said democracy in Afghanistan wouldn't work. Well guess what, it is working, bit by bit. Sure, it's not perfect, but there's more freedom than ever for the people of Afghanistan. If all you peace protestors want to see the Iraqi people stuck in the rut they're in for another century, great. Saddam has created the impression the West wants Iraq, we don't, we want him, but we're going to have to go through the whole countyr to get to him.
Lastly. This won't be another Gulf War. I'd expect to see American carrier groups. probably 2 at minimum, coming within the longest operating rane possible of Iraq, B52's out of Fairford and maybe Mildenhall, Special Forces out of Saudi Arabia - who will back the campaign. Other troops will probably stage from Turkey, and Aviano.
On this, you'r either with the USA. or with Iraq, thankfully Tony has some sense, as does Duncan Smith, and were with them. It's about time county's were told they can't dither around on the sidelines of issues, they have to take sides. America is the only Superpower left, because it takes sides, and plays to win. Like we did, once......
~~Belldandy~~
> McCarthy's back. Who's next?
I don't think so. Senator McArthur's witchhunt against communists is in no way the same situation we have today.
I agree with what one previous poster has pointed out. Europe likes to just sit back, get hit, then ask for help. Pity it's not going to happen.
This morning, the Tories gave official backing to a campaign against Iraq, leaving only Charles Kennedy's bunch of imbeciles against a campaign. In America, Bush has both democratic and republican support. The lights are going from amber....to green.
The obkective is not to destory Iraq, it's cities, or anything like that. They are clear, and whatever our idiotic clergy fom the COE say, morally right. Destroy Saddam's entire regime. Destroy WMD's and any facilities with WMD research/development/equipment. Establish a new government with democratic principles.
They're pretty clear, don't you think ?
No one is saying it's going to be easy, but those naysayers were the same ones who said democracy in Afghanistan wouldn't work. Well guess what, it is working, bit by bit. Sure, it's not perfect, but there's more freedom than ever for the people of Afghanistan. If all you peace protestors want to see the Iraqi people stuck in the rut they're in for another century, great. Saddam has created the impression the West wants Iraq, we don't, we want him, but we're going to have to go through the whole countyr to get to him.
Lastly. This won't be another Gulf War. I'd expect to see American carrier groups. probably 2 at minimum, coming within the longest operating rane possible of Iraq, B52's out of Fairford and maybe Mildenhall, Special Forces out of Saudi Arabia - who will back the campaign. Other troops will probably stage from Turkey, and Aviano.
On this, you'r either with the USA. or with Iraq, thankfully Tony has some sense, as does Duncan Smith, and were with them. It's about time county's were told they can't dither around on the sidelines of issues, they have to take sides. America is the only Superpower left, because it takes sides, and plays to win. Like we did, once......
~~Belldandy~~
Sure, and a couple of decades down the line, when British Prime Minister Cole takes a dignified stand and refuses to let George W III's master race have free roam of our laboratories and military sites, then maybe GW will figure it's better to be safe than sorry and nuke us and all our children too.
Far fetched? Sure, but the two points, if they need to be spelt out:
1. Empathy. You know you wouldn't condone this if you and your family were at risk of being the civilan casualties of stray US air to ground weapons.
2. We can't stand by and offer america the power to dictate right and wrong, select who may have the privilage of life, and toss the rules of natural justice out of the window whenever it suits them, unless we're willing to accept the potential backlash as one abnormally unintelligent president toys with the idea of imposing his particular ideals and his rule on the whole world, rather than just the fools to whom he's democratically accountable.
During the cold war it used to be that american citizens could have their rights violated in the name of fighting communism. As hisotry plays out another cycle, i just don't want to see the world's citizens having their rights violated in the name of fighting terrorism.
As i said before, of course this has to be balanced with the benefits of preventative action in preventing other evils, and, depending on what undisclosed intelligence has been gathered by american forces that neither you nor i are privvy to, this may be one of the times when such preventative measures must be taken.
But if so, Bush needs to acknowledge that starting a war with iraq is the lesser of two evils, and the utmost must be done to keep force and civilian casualties to a minimum. We need reassurance that america are not building pathways to claim to be able to take such action as of right, otherwise we do hand over powers of judge, jury and executioner to Bush and whoever may find their way into power in america in the future.
And all the talk of 'with us or against us' must not be allowed to blind us to this.
McCarthy's back. Who's next?
Far fetched? Sure, but the two points, if they need to be spelt out:
1. Empathy. You know you wouldn't condone this if you and your family were at risk of being the civilan casualties of stray US air to ground weapons.
2. We can't stand by and offer america the power to dictate right and wrong, select who may have the privilage of life, and toss the rules of natural justice out of the window whenever it suits them, unless we're willing to accept the potential backlash as one abnormally unintelligent president toys with the idea of imposing his particular ideals and his rule on the whole world, rather than just the fools to whom he's democratically accountable.
During the cold war it used to be that american citizens could have their rights violated in the name of fighting communism. As hisotry plays out another cycle, i just don't want to see the world's citizens having their rights violated in the name of fighting terrorism.
As i said before, of course this has to be balanced with the benefits of preventative action in preventing other evils, and, depending on what undisclosed intelligence has been gathered by american forces that neither you nor i are privvy to, this may be one of the times when such preventative measures must be taken.
But if so, Bush needs to acknowledge that starting a war with iraq is the lesser of two evils, and the utmost must be done to keep force and civilian casualties to a minimum. We need reassurance that america are not building pathways to claim to be able to take such action as of right, otherwise we do hand over powers of judge, jury and executioner to Bush and whoever may find their way into power in america in the future.
And all the talk of 'with us or against us' must not be allowed to blind us to this.
McCarthy's back. Who's next?
What if America is destroyed first, wouldn't it make sense for Iraq if they are going to attack the west that they attack their biggest threat and crippling at least some of its army?
Remember:
Rome- The great superpower of yesteryear was eventually defeated by Barbarians, considered a small threat by the Romans and eventually ending in their destruction.
Vietnam- Ok, so the Americans charged in all gung-ho and lost because the natives knew all about the landscape etc, but it just shows how the underdog can overturn the favourite.
I personally don't want to see Iraq destroyed but Saddam Hussain Assassinated getting rid of the problem and allowing for a 'puppet' to be put in and let the UN inspectors disarm the weapons we all know are hidden inside Iraq.
Ali
Remember:
Rome- The great superpower of yesteryear was eventually defeated by Barbarians, considered a small threat by the Romans and eventually ending in their destruction.
Vietnam- Ok, so the Americans charged in all gung-ho and lost because the natives knew all about the landscape etc, but it just shows how the underdog can overturn the favourite.
I personally don't want to see Iraq destroyed but Saddam Hussain Assassinated getting rid of the problem and allowing for a 'puppet' to be put in and let the UN inspectors disarm the weapons we all know are hidden inside Iraq.
Ali
both of the last people who replied i agree 110%. When half of europe has been blown to high heaven where do you expect the first place everyone will look will be? That's right America. Well i hope when that day comes America tells Europe where to stick it and let them deal with Saddam themselves and make them learn a lesson. I'll have moved over there by the time this happens so i'll be quite happy thank you.
The thing is, it's easy to blame America for all of the worlds problems, same as it's easy to blame Nike for child slavery.
If America did nothing, they were not so dominent, can you imagine what the middle east would be like now? There would be no-one to fear.
If America did nothing, they were not so dominent, can you imagine what the middle east would be like now? There would be no-one to fear.
Yes, your quite right to demand proof before action is taken against Iraq.
I say we wait for proof before doing anything.
We wait until the a mushroom cloud blooms over a western city or Israel.
We wait until people lie dead and dying from nerve gas released in the underground.
We wait for the next airliner to destroy it's target.
We wait for the next invasion of Kuwait.
We wait as Saddam completes his development and becomes stronger.
First off, flashback to 12/9/2001, President Bush "You're either with us or your against us".
That says it all, and no matter what numerous whining special interest groups say, thats what it comes down to. You either support a campaign against terrorism and all that encompasses, like Iraq, or you support the terrorists.
Russia is doing billion dollar deals with Iraq, France is negotiatiing preferential oil prices in the area, and so on. Europe would rather take Iraq's little money than stop Saddam. China supplie weapons to Iraq, the Palestinian terrorist groups, including those linked to Yasser Arafat, train there. Most of the middle east would support a donkey if it opposed Israel. The UN boss Kofi Annan is guilty of negligence, lack of urgency, and mass naivety on this matter.
Over 3000 people were murdered nearly a year from now because a majority of the "public" sat safely at home and were content to let Al Queda exist, and they did. In 1999 the FBI Director Louis Freech warned that terrorist cells were known to be active across the world and co operating more than ever, he warned that Al Queda was a big threat. Who cared ? Very few. The British public is great at reacting to events, but rather blind to stopping those events before they happen.
Over 60 years ago Germany invaded Europe. No one was ready, no one believed it would happen.
This millenium was heralded as being something better than hat had gone before, The Cold War has gone and it's safe to say that World War 3 will now remain just a story. Terrorism has risen it's collective head though, and it's the #1 threat to world security. That means it's up to those with power, money, and a sense of just cause, to sort out the problem.
How do you sort it ? You attack it, destroy it, make sure it can never return.
Finally, for those who want a better reason to destroy Saddam's regime;
1) He is developing WMDs, why hide what isn't there ? If he doesn't use them against the West he will against Israel. Israel will NOT ask foranyone's opinion if this happens - it'll be a case of nuclear armed cruise missiles and F16s with nuclear bombs within an hour. Iraq, Baghdad, and every major city will be gone. Syria, various palestinian groups, and most of the region will go up in flames as the war spreads. Millions will die, and the West will watch on CNN or Fox, or BBC, providing we've got solar power, 'cause there'll be little oil for power stations/
2) Take a look around this country, see much security ? Er...nope. We can't secure the channel tunnel for god sakes ! It would be startlingly easy to get a suitcase nuke or bio weapons into the country and to hit a population centre. Takea look at America, access by air or ports, both now relatively secure, cobined agency to watch for suspected terrorists. Doing this would a viable thing for Iraq. There's nearly no evidence trail and proof would be hard to get if it was a small cell responsible.
~~Belldandy~~
I say we wait for proof before doing anything.
We wait until the a mushroom cloud blooms over a western city or Israel.
We wait until people lie dead and dying from nerve gas released in the underground.
We wait for the next airliner to destroy it's target.
We wait for the next invasion of Kuwait.
We wait as Saddam completes his development and becomes stronger.
First off, flashback to 12/9/2001, President Bush "You're either with us or your against us".
That says it all, and no matter what numerous whining special interest groups say, thats what it comes down to. You either support a campaign against terrorism and all that encompasses, like Iraq, or you support the terrorists.
Russia is doing billion dollar deals with Iraq, France is negotiatiing preferential oil prices in the area, and so on. Europe would rather take Iraq's little money than stop Saddam. China supplie weapons to Iraq, the Palestinian terrorist groups, including those linked to Yasser Arafat, train there. Most of the middle east would support a donkey if it opposed Israel. The UN boss Kofi Annan is guilty of negligence, lack of urgency, and mass naivety on this matter.
Over 3000 people were murdered nearly a year from now because a majority of the "public" sat safely at home and were content to let Al Queda exist, and they did. In 1999 the FBI Director Louis Freech warned that terrorist cells were known to be active across the world and co operating more than ever, he warned that Al Queda was a big threat. Who cared ? Very few. The British public is great at reacting to events, but rather blind to stopping those events before they happen.
Over 60 years ago Germany invaded Europe. No one was ready, no one believed it would happen.
This millenium was heralded as being something better than hat had gone before, The Cold War has gone and it's safe to say that World War 3 will now remain just a story. Terrorism has risen it's collective head though, and it's the #1 threat to world security. That means it's up to those with power, money, and a sense of just cause, to sort out the problem.
How do you sort it ? You attack it, destroy it, make sure it can never return.
Finally, for those who want a better reason to destroy Saddam's regime;
1) He is developing WMDs, why hide what isn't there ? If he doesn't use them against the West he will against Israel. Israel will NOT ask foranyone's opinion if this happens - it'll be a case of nuclear armed cruise missiles and F16s with nuclear bombs within an hour. Iraq, Baghdad, and every major city will be gone. Syria, various palestinian groups, and most of the region will go up in flames as the war spreads. Millions will die, and the West will watch on CNN or Fox, or BBC, providing we've got solar power, 'cause there'll be little oil for power stations/
2) Take a look around this country, see much security ? Er...nope. We can't secure the channel tunnel for god sakes ! It would be startlingly easy to get a suitcase nuke or bio weapons into the country and to hit a population centre. Takea look at America, access by air or ports, both now relatively secure, cobined agency to watch for suspected terrorists. Doing this would a viable thing for Iraq. There's nearly no evidence trail and proof would be hard to get if it was a small cell responsible.
~~Belldandy~~
When American shows the world proof that Iraq is more of a threat now than it was when the Gulf war ended then it will have the backing it needs, but they obviously have no proof. If American invades Iraq then I hope the United Nations impose sanctions on America so that they can't bully other countries into submission.
Personally i think Bush needs to finish everything with Laden first before he goes off on another adventure with his new found military toys. Make sure Laden is captured if he isn't already dead and brought to justice and then go after Saddam. Without finishing the agenda in afghanistan you can't concentrate 100% on a war in Iraq which could lead to a humiliating and costly defeat.
However the idea of Saddam being totally innocent and not a danger to the world is nonsense really. We all know what he's capable of and would quite happily attack the western world when he has the means to do so. If he does refuse the UN weapons inspectors TOTAL access to whatever they want then i think that's all the proof you need that he's hiding something. If he lets weapons inspectors in and they don't find anything then there's no reason for a war on Iraq. Bush must seen to be going down the proper channels before attacking just to appease the rest of the world.
However the idea of Saddam being totally innocent and not a danger to the world is nonsense really. We all know what he's capable of and would quite happily attack the western world when he has the means to do so. If he does refuse the UN weapons inspectors TOTAL access to whatever they want then i think that's all the proof you need that he's hiding something. If he lets weapons inspectors in and they don't find anything then there's no reason for a war on Iraq. Bush must seen to be going down the proper channels before attacking just to appease the rest of the world.
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: