The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
What shall the forthcoming attack on Iraq be called?
(well there is a small chanced they might not)
Operation we don't care what anyone else thinks
Operation we don't have million dollar weapons to gather dust
Operation George Oilwell
Operation we just like bullying countries
Operation Blair loses all support
Operation Bush/Blair Honeymoon
Etc etc
Your go
(well there is a small chanced they might not)
Operation we don't care what anyone else thinks
Operation we don't have million dollar weapons to gather dust
Operation George Oilwell
Operation we just like bullying countries
Operation Blair loses all support
Operation Bush/Blair Honeymoon
Etc etc
Your go
Page:
hey jackasses, this is a comedy forum, take your controversy elsewhere
I agree that something should be done about Iraq.
But you can't ignore two things.
One, Saddam was put there by a short-term thinking US government that didn't want the Shia Muslims (the majority of Iraq's population) in power. The lesson to be learned here is that America cannot think short term - it has to stay in Iraq for the long haul (all ready america wants to pull peace keepers out of Bosnia)
Two, America needs support to do this. I know that America has the power to crush Saddam, but it needs the international support to do so as well. It can only secure this by taking an active role in the international community. So far America has bloacked the forming of an international court, baggered up the Kyoto agreement and been too partisan in the Middle-East.
America's problem is not confined to Iraq. If Saddam is deposed then the problem of terrorism will not end. In this respect America needs to send a message to other Muslim countries that it is not anti-Muslim. Ever since it attacked Kuwait, a fellow Muslim country, Iraq's current regime has been disliked by other Muslim countries. But they will still not like it if America attacks without at least their tacit approval. It will be worse for America in the long-run if it storms into Iraq without support. Sure Saddam'll be gone, but the threat of fundamentalist attacks will be stronger than ever.
You're right that evil triumphes when good men do nothing, but there are degrees of good and evil. Saddam is at one extreme and America is somewhere in the middle, the people at the other extreme need to make sure that America operates within International law, and in a constructive manner. If they stand by and let America trample international law then you've allowed evil in the form of lawlessness to take root.
But you can't ignore two things.
One, Saddam was put there by a short-term thinking US government that didn't want the Shia Muslims (the majority of Iraq's population) in power. The lesson to be learned here is that America cannot think short term - it has to stay in Iraq for the long haul (all ready america wants to pull peace keepers out of Bosnia)
Two, America needs support to do this. I know that America has the power to crush Saddam, but it needs the international support to do so as well. It can only secure this by taking an active role in the international community. So far America has bloacked the forming of an international court, baggered up the Kyoto agreement and been too partisan in the Middle-East.
America's problem is not confined to Iraq. If Saddam is deposed then the problem of terrorism will not end. In this respect America needs to send a message to other Muslim countries that it is not anti-Muslim. Ever since it attacked Kuwait, a fellow Muslim country, Iraq's current regime has been disliked by other Muslim countries. But they will still not like it if America attacks without at least their tacit approval. It will be worse for America in the long-run if it storms into Iraq without support. Sure Saddam'll be gone, but the threat of fundamentalist attacks will be stronger than ever.
You're right that evil triumphes when good men do nothing, but there are degrees of good and evil. Saddam is at one extreme and America is somewhere in the middle, the people at the other extreme need to make sure that America operates within International law, and in a constructive manner. If they stand by and let America trample international law then you've allowed evil in the form of lawlessness to take root.
You're all forgetting the most important thing.
America does not need anybody's help to oust Saddam. clearly, in any campaign, America will win and install a government similar to the one in Afghanistan that represents the different factions.
If a war is fought in Iraq then any country that obstructs the war better get ready for some serious trade sanctions.
By not backing a US led assault on Saddam's regime you are in effect backing Saddam, a man who has flouted UN resolutions, ejected weapons inspectors in 1998, killed over 100 000 of the Kurds with nerve gas, broke the Geneva convention during the Gulf War, attacked Israel during the Gulf War. You are supporting and tolerating a man who hates Jews, who would pervert his own religion to his own cause, who uses nerve gas against his own people, who claims he has nothing to hide but won't let anyone check, who targets UN planes in the no fly zone, who has offered rewards for shooting down UN war planes, who has offered rewards for captured UN plane crews - a reward the doubles should the crew be dead.
Nearly all of you live in a country that offers freedom to everyone, yet you would deny the Iraqi people this freedom. You issue forth such objections as the environment, diplomacy, containment, innoncent casualties.
FACT: Britain moved, in the 80's, to secure the Oli and gas fields in the North Sea and soght ot deny that supply to Europe. We primarily fought the Falklands war over the oil we knew was nearby. In the pre and post WW2 days we still virtually ran much of the Middle East and seeded the problems of today. Air pollution ocntinues to rise in most cities. Recycling is still barely used. We want ot dictate to the US on the environment yet we have little respect in the area ourselves.
FACT: Diplomacy has been going on since 1998. It doesn' work, the UN is being given the run around and Richard Butler resigned over the UN head's refusal to be more tough on Iraq. This guy was in charge of the weapons teams and has since wrote a book on the subject where he clearl states he beleives Iraq has WMD's now.
FACT: Containment doesn't work anymore. Everyone believed Bin Laden contained, he wasn't. Saddam isn't either.
FACT: Unfortunately every war kills innocents. Nothing can bring them back and they have no voice. All that matters is we try to avoid killing innocents. In Saddam we face an enemy who has located his anti aircraft units, armoured divisions and weapons plants in civilian areas on purpose. An air campaign would kill hundreds of Iraqi's in the process, which is why this time around urban warfare may be the only tactic and that'll mean high allied casualties. Our own side will lose many good men and women.
Even after 9/11 many don't relaise it yet. The old days have gone. there will be no more wars fought with clear lines of reason and evidence to move against a threat. Many of you in the UK think that a 9/11 style of attack won't happen to us. It could. Nerve gas on the London tube, a suitcase weapon in the heart of London, a plane onto Downing Street. God forbid it should happen, but it could, unless we decide to act now. Lack of action and public support for war in 1939 ended in a massive conflict that killed millions. Are we going to sit back now ?
"All that is needed for the triumpth of evil is for the good men to do nothing"
We're doing nothing right now.
~~Belldandy~~
America does not need anybody's help to oust Saddam. clearly, in any campaign, America will win and install a government similar to the one in Afghanistan that represents the different factions.
If a war is fought in Iraq then any country that obstructs the war better get ready for some serious trade sanctions.
By not backing a US led assault on Saddam's regime you are in effect backing Saddam, a man who has flouted UN resolutions, ejected weapons inspectors in 1998, killed over 100 000 of the Kurds with nerve gas, broke the Geneva convention during the Gulf War, attacked Israel during the Gulf War. You are supporting and tolerating a man who hates Jews, who would pervert his own religion to his own cause, who uses nerve gas against his own people, who claims he has nothing to hide but won't let anyone check, who targets UN planes in the no fly zone, who has offered rewards for shooting down UN war planes, who has offered rewards for captured UN plane crews - a reward the doubles should the crew be dead.
Nearly all of you live in a country that offers freedom to everyone, yet you would deny the Iraqi people this freedom. You issue forth such objections as the environment, diplomacy, containment, innoncent casualties.
FACT: Britain moved, in the 80's, to secure the Oli and gas fields in the North Sea and soght ot deny that supply to Europe. We primarily fought the Falklands war over the oil we knew was nearby. In the pre and post WW2 days we still virtually ran much of the Middle East and seeded the problems of today. Air pollution ocntinues to rise in most cities. Recycling is still barely used. We want ot dictate to the US on the environment yet we have little respect in the area ourselves.
FACT: Diplomacy has been going on since 1998. It doesn' work, the UN is being given the run around and Richard Butler resigned over the UN head's refusal to be more tough on Iraq. This guy was in charge of the weapons teams and has since wrote a book on the subject where he clearl states he beleives Iraq has WMD's now.
FACT: Containment doesn't work anymore. Everyone believed Bin Laden contained, he wasn't. Saddam isn't either.
FACT: Unfortunately every war kills innocents. Nothing can bring them back and they have no voice. All that matters is we try to avoid killing innocents. In Saddam we face an enemy who has located his anti aircraft units, armoured divisions and weapons plants in civilian areas on purpose. An air campaign would kill hundreds of Iraqi's in the process, which is why this time around urban warfare may be the only tactic and that'll mean high allied casualties. Our own side will lose many good men and women.
Even after 9/11 many don't relaise it yet. The old days have gone. there will be no more wars fought with clear lines of reason and evidence to move against a threat. Many of you in the UK think that a 9/11 style of attack won't happen to us. It could. Nerve gas on the London tube, a suitcase weapon in the heart of London, a plane onto Downing Street. God forbid it should happen, but it could, unless we decide to act now. Lack of action and public support for war in 1939 ended in a massive conflict that killed millions. Are we going to sit back now ?
"All that is needed for the triumpth of evil is for the good men to do nothing"
We're doing nothing right now.
~~Belldandy~~
Operation Blair loves his Bush.
Operation get Blairs toungue out of Bushes a**
Operation get someone else to do it for you Bush (yes i'm talking about the world debate thing! you know who you are)
Operation bomb british troops, but make out it was a mistake
blah blah blah america rules blah blah blah
Operation get someone else to do it for you Bush (yes i'm talking about the world debate thing! you know who you are)
Operation bomb british troops, but make out it was a mistake
blah blah blah america rules blah blah blah
SHEEPY wrote:
> it's just hidden by it's pop celebs and McDonalds signs
That's how to win the war on terror.
Invade with an army of McDonalds eateries, and Gap and Levis and Nike and Adidas and pop stars and Big Brother.
Give it a few decades and the whole of the Middle East will have turned into the cultural nothingness that is the West - devoid of god, devoid of passion and so devoid of fundamentalism.
> it's just hidden by it's pop celebs and McDonalds signs
That's how to win the war on terror.
Invade with an army of McDonalds eateries, and Gap and Levis and Nike and Adidas and pop stars and Big Brother.
Give it a few decades and the whole of the Middle East will have turned into the cultural nothingness that is the West - devoid of god, devoid of passion and so devoid of fundamentalism.
Damn right
I was watching a speach by George Bush talking about how terrorists attacked America because they loved their freedom too much...
Errr yeah like the innocent people you bombed in Afganistan didn't love their freedom
Then he went on about needing to bring America's kids up in a free world
America and Britain are one of the worst countries in the world for this... it's just hidden by it's pop celebs and McDonalds signs
I was watching a speach by George Bush talking about how terrorists attacked America because they loved their freedom too much...
Errr yeah like the innocent people you bombed in Afganistan didn't love their freedom
Then he went on about needing to bring America's kids up in a free world
America and Britain are one of the worst countries in the world for this... it's just hidden by it's pop celebs and McDonalds signs
I think that Saddam is a danger but the US cannot just unilaterally declare war on another country, as that is the very way in which America has so enraged Muslim fundamentalists. And whether Saddam is there or not, it only takes one terrorist cell to commit another atrocity. If America wants support it needs to make concessions.
It needs to ratify Kyoto to show that it will play an active role in global problems, and thereby gain support in Europe. And it needs to take a more balanced stance in the Israel-Palastine dispute, perhaps condemning Israel's atrocities once in a while. Then it would restore its image in the Muslim world. Once America has shown itself to be a team player it can attack Iraq if it so wishes, with the backing of the internetional community.
America cannot be allowed to attack without pretext. Yes the UN says that you can attack if someone attacks you, but the US is saying that it needs to attack to pre-empt an attack by Saddam (shaky ground) who will attack using the weapons of mass destruction he may or may not have (really shaky ground). What kind of pre-text is that?
With the UN's help America could gain the necessary clearance in international law to attack, but it can't be allowed to ignore the law at one time, and use it ruthlessly to protect its interests at another time (the banana war with Europe for instance, then suddenly America's doing the same damn thing with steal and it ignores the law).
America needs to end its hypocrisy.
It needs to ratify Kyoto to show that it will play an active role in global problems, and thereby gain support in Europe. And it needs to take a more balanced stance in the Israel-Palastine dispute, perhaps condemning Israel's atrocities once in a while. Then it would restore its image in the Muslim world. Once America has shown itself to be a team player it can attack Iraq if it so wishes, with the backing of the internetional community.
America cannot be allowed to attack without pretext. Yes the UN says that you can attack if someone attacks you, but the US is saying that it needs to attack to pre-empt an attack by Saddam (shaky ground) who will attack using the weapons of mass destruction he may or may not have (really shaky ground). What kind of pre-text is that?
With the UN's help America could gain the necessary clearance in international law to attack, but it can't be allowed to ignore the law at one time, and use it ruthlessly to protect its interests at another time (the banana war with Europe for instance, then suddenly America's doing the same damn thing with steal and it ignores the law).
America needs to end its hypocrisy.
Mr. Happy knows the way
Operation we have no idea what we will do if we win this
Operation we have no idea what we will do if we win this
Belldandy wrote:
> Operation if it wasn't for the peacemakers among you we would have
> done this the first time
Operation oh balls we put Saddam there in the first place to protect our oil interests from the Shia muslims, but we then sold them up the stream by pullin out of Iraq the last time. Oh my what a despicable superpower we are. Why don't we think longterm for once instead of only ever thinking to the next Presidential elections. What's that? There's one coming up?! Attack! Attack!
> Operation if it wasn't for the peacemakers among you we would have
> done this the first time
Operation oh balls we put Saddam there in the first place to protect our oil interests from the Shia muslims, but we then sold them up the stream by pullin out of Iraq the last time. Oh my what a despicable superpower we are. Why don't we think longterm for once instead of only ever thinking to the next Presidential elections. What's that? There's one coming up?! Attack! Attack!
Page: