The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
For having nuclear arms?
Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?
Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair
Hypocrites
Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?
Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair
Hypocrites
Page:
Well actually the Taliban regime wasn't ignored, except by the british news media. Since 1999 America had made repeated calls to the UN to put pressure on the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden after the 1st WTC bombing attempt earlier on. Clinton also stopped at leat two known USSOCOM missions to forcibly extract Taliban leaders.
Civlians and human rights in Iraq - you cannot say the USA and UK are being hypocrtical on this, in my opinion anyway. Sure, this is primarily about getting the WMDS and removing the regime, but it is about delivering some kind of democracy to the Iraqi people. Again, this isn't something new and the USA and UK have repeatedly protested on record to the UN that Iraq was diverting money from the oil for food program to military equipment. Did the rest of the UN listen ?
No, because members like France, Russia, China and Germany are doing business with Iraq.
The Human rights groups such as Amnesty have detailed what they can about abuses in Iraq, but I doubt Iraq gives a toss quite frankly. Face it, unless Saddam is removed, abuses will continue. Any military campaign will kill civlians in the process, however with deaths from extrajudicial killings, prison cleansing, rape, political murder, unlawful executions e.t.c in Iraq running at over 100,000 a year - just what we can guess at, I think the long term effect is worth it.
If the UN had dones its job then this would never have come to pass, but it didn't, and it has. We either face up to Iraq, or back down, and wait for the next attack that makes 9/11 look like minor incident, because that will happen if Iraq isn't stopped.
If the USA and UK are the only nations with the courage to do it, so be it.
~~Belldandy~~
Civlians and human rights in Iraq - you cannot say the USA and UK are being hypocrtical on this, in my opinion anyway. Sure, this is primarily about getting the WMDS and removing the regime, but it is about delivering some kind of democracy to the Iraqi people. Again, this isn't something new and the USA and UK have repeatedly protested on record to the UN that Iraq was diverting money from the oil for food program to military equipment. Did the rest of the UN listen ?
No, because members like France, Russia, China and Germany are doing business with Iraq.
The Human rights groups such as Amnesty have detailed what they can about abuses in Iraq, but I doubt Iraq gives a toss quite frankly. Face it, unless Saddam is removed, abuses will continue. Any military campaign will kill civlians in the process, however with deaths from extrajudicial killings, prison cleansing, rape, political murder, unlawful executions e.t.c in Iraq running at over 100,000 a year - just what we can guess at, I think the long term effect is worth it.
If the UN had dones its job then this would never have come to pass, but it didn't, and it has. We either face up to Iraq, or back down, and wait for the next attack that makes 9/11 look like minor incident, because that will happen if Iraq isn't stopped.
If the USA and UK are the only nations with the courage to do it, so be it.
~~Belldandy~~
I support the American/UK war on Iraq, but I can't help but feel that Blair is being very disingenuous to parliament and the country at large. Now I'm happy to have Blair come out and say, honestly, we have to go to war with Saddam, because he threatens the livelihood of the Western world and poses a singularly dangerous threat. That's fine, I agree with that.
What I dislike is when Blair tries to strengthen the case against Saddam by presenting the pacifists with his raison d'etre: to free the Iraqi people from oppression; ostensibly, the war is all about democratising Iraq and enfranchising the fabulous people of Iraq. That's just rubbish, and no sensible person should buy into that.
Why was it that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was completely ignored until September 11, in its arguably poorer record on human rights violation than Iraq? Why is nothing done about Mugabe? Or any of the other countries whose rights are being violated?
Now if you read my other posts, I support Israel, and am not one of the 'Stop the War' lobby, nor do I read Amnesty etc. It's just that I cannot stand these double standards; the UK/US doesn't give a toss about the civilian persecution in Iraq, don't kid yourself, it couldn't care less. It's just being used as a way to make the pacifists look like hypocrites, when it should actually be the other way round, and it is Blair and Bush that employ such blatant double standards.
So please, don't buy into this 'for the good of Iraq' rubbish. If the job needs doing, lets do it, it's not going to be pretty and many lives will be lost, maybe for the good of many more, maybe not. But lets not dress this up as some Red Cross activity.
Oh, and one more point, why exactly are we going to start another war before the last one's finished? Now, the last time I checked, Bush was saying that 'Elimination of Bin Laden remains the priority', so while he's laughing it up in a cave with some camels, watching this unfold on Al-Jazeera, who's to say we're going to get Saddam either? He's got like a dozen lookalikes, keeps his movement disclosed to a handful of people, let alone even his whole cabinet and has thousands of miles of underground tunnels. After the Afghanistan debacle, what makes you think the US has any better hope in Iraq?
Rant over.
What I dislike is when Blair tries to strengthen the case against Saddam by presenting the pacifists with his raison d'etre: to free the Iraqi people from oppression; ostensibly, the war is all about democratising Iraq and enfranchising the fabulous people of Iraq. That's just rubbish, and no sensible person should buy into that.
Why was it that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was completely ignored until September 11, in its arguably poorer record on human rights violation than Iraq? Why is nothing done about Mugabe? Or any of the other countries whose rights are being violated?
Now if you read my other posts, I support Israel, and am not one of the 'Stop the War' lobby, nor do I read Amnesty etc. It's just that I cannot stand these double standards; the UK/US doesn't give a toss about the civilian persecution in Iraq, don't kid yourself, it couldn't care less. It's just being used as a way to make the pacifists look like hypocrites, when it should actually be the other way round, and it is Blair and Bush that employ such blatant double standards.
So please, don't buy into this 'for the good of Iraq' rubbish. If the job needs doing, lets do it, it's not going to be pretty and many lives will be lost, maybe for the good of many more, maybe not. But lets not dress this up as some Red Cross activity.
Oh, and one more point, why exactly are we going to start another war before the last one's finished? Now, the last time I checked, Bush was saying that 'Elimination of Bin Laden remains the priority', so while he's laughing it up in a cave with some camels, watching this unfold on Al-Jazeera, who's to say we're going to get Saddam either? He's got like a dozen lookalikes, keeps his movement disclosed to a handful of people, let alone even his whole cabinet and has thousands of miles of underground tunnels. After the Afghanistan debacle, what makes you think the US has any better hope in Iraq?
Rant over.
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> The fact that Iraq have imposed conditions on the inspections suggests
> that he is playing games again!#
Yes, it's that simple. However, large numbers of people seem to have difficulty coming to this rather obvious conclusion !
~~Belldandy~~
> The fact that Iraq have imposed conditions on the inspections suggests
> that he is playing games again!#
Yes, it's that simple. However, large numbers of people seem to have difficulty coming to this rather obvious conclusion !
~~Belldandy~~
The fact that Iraq have imposed conditions on the inspections suggests that he is playing games again!
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> If saddam were to let unrestricted accses to weapons inspectors it
> would be denied by everybody as a tactic.
> which it has
Except this wasn't what Saddam offered, thought it seemsed to be until the final sentence of the offer left it open for Iraq to impose conditions on them.
Besides, this isn't about asking to come in and inspect anymore, its saying that we're going to inspect the sites whatever happens, and if that means inspecting them from the viewpoint of a tank or bomber so be it.
~~Belldandy~~
> If saddam were to let unrestricted accses to weapons inspectors it
> would be denied by everybody as a tactic.
> which it has
Except this wasn't what Saddam offered, thought it seemsed to be until the final sentence of the offer left it open for Iraq to impose conditions on them.
Besides, this isn't about asking to come in and inspect anymore, its saying that we're going to inspect the sites whatever happens, and if that means inspecting them from the viewpoint of a tank or bomber so be it.
~~Belldandy~~
If saddam were to let unrestricted accses to weapons inspectors it would be denied by everybody as a tactic.
which it has
which it has
Actually the US has developed a bomb that burrows into its target a significant distance before exploding and vaporising chemical/biological weapons. They intend to drop these on to the sites of underground bunkers - placed in civilian areas by Hussein - and destroy them without problems.
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> I say we should bomb him while we still have the element of surpise.
This is one thing we cannot do. Saddam has placed his sites, units and weapons in built up areas. We can't just level everywhere - as America and the Uk have made clear.
Inevitably, civlians will be killed, but don't forget that Iraq could stop all this at any time by allowing unrestricted access. It won't.
We do need surprise thought - quick strikes by air mobile forces and air support on the key areas, at night, with maximum force possible. Go for total overkill and show no mercy for the Iraqi army. A violent enough first strike could break morale in all but the Republican Guard. This element of the Iraqi army needs to be eliminated in the opening stages as they're Saddam's biggest strength. The opening phase should see every technological advantage we have brougt to bear on the Iraqi army.
~~Belldandy~~
> I say we should bomb him while we still have the element of surpise.
This is one thing we cannot do. Saddam has placed his sites, units and weapons in built up areas. We can't just level everywhere - as America and the Uk have made clear.
Inevitably, civlians will be killed, but don't forget that Iraq could stop all this at any time by allowing unrestricted access. It won't.
We do need surprise thought - quick strikes by air mobile forces and air support on the key areas, at night, with maximum force possible. Go for total overkill and show no mercy for the Iraqi army. A violent enough first strike could break morale in all but the Republican Guard. This element of the Iraqi army needs to be eliminated in the opening stages as they're Saddam's biggest strength. The opening phase should see every technological advantage we have brougt to bear on the Iraqi army.
~~Belldandy~~
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> I say we should bomb him while we still have the element of surpise.
> but we must watch how we tread!
Element of surprise?!
This war is about as inevitable as it gets. The only thing that will stop it is if Saddam stalls past March, then they won't call an invasion because it will be too hot. And then when it's lukewarm again George will be fighting an election and no wars are fought during election time.
As for all the stuff about Saddam being ruthless. Sure he is. I think lots of it is rumour and propaganda, but it doesn't disguise one disturbing fact. We put him there. Why? Because the US doesn't like Shia Muslims because they are hardcore Muslims, and that's the type of government that the US doesn't like. So they backed Saddam. Then they ignored him because no US government has ever thought long term. When George Bush Sr got the chance to topple Saddam he didn't, and sold the rebels up the stream, leaving them to be tortured and massacred.
Saddam is the product of short-termism. Which is the product of 4 year terms and fickle populaces. You've got to think short-term because either you don't have time to do anything long term or the policy wouldn't deliver quick results.
Short-term objective: secure friendly government in middle-east keep oil prices low (no surprise that Candela Rice, Dick Cheney and Georgey himself all have backgrounds involving oil companies.)
A sensible long-term objective would be to improve relations in the middle east and move away from oil as a fuel source through research. But balls to that because war's a ratings winner.
> I say we should bomb him while we still have the element of surpise.
> but we must watch how we tread!
Element of surprise?!
This war is about as inevitable as it gets. The only thing that will stop it is if Saddam stalls past March, then they won't call an invasion because it will be too hot. And then when it's lukewarm again George will be fighting an election and no wars are fought during election time.
As for all the stuff about Saddam being ruthless. Sure he is. I think lots of it is rumour and propaganda, but it doesn't disguise one disturbing fact. We put him there. Why? Because the US doesn't like Shia Muslims because they are hardcore Muslims, and that's the type of government that the US doesn't like. So they backed Saddam. Then they ignored him because no US government has ever thought long term. When George Bush Sr got the chance to topple Saddam he didn't, and sold the rebels up the stream, leaving them to be tortured and massacred.
Saddam is the product of short-termism. Which is the product of 4 year terms and fickle populaces. You've got to think short-term because either you don't have time to do anything long term or the policy wouldn't deliver quick results.
Short-term objective: secure friendly government in middle-east keep oil prices low (no surprise that Candela Rice, Dick Cheney and Georgey himself all have backgrounds involving oil companies.)
A sensible long-term objective would be to improve relations in the middle east and move away from oil as a fuel source through research. But balls to that because war's a ratings winner.
Goatboy wrote:
> Who's next after Hussein?
> Answer: Check the receipts we have for the weapons we sold.
Nice try ;) During the Iran Iraq war we and America did supply weapons to Iraq, but in exchange we gained data on Soviet weapons/armour. However, these weapons were mostly used up during the Iran Iraq war, and annhilated in the Gulf War.
Intelligence, Balir's speech today, and the dossier, show how Iraq has rebuilt and expanded everything since 1991, and acquired more chemicals and biological weapons, it has tried to buy nuclear material from Milosovich's government before it fell, and may have uranium from Africa.
We aren't guilt for either of those, nor for the bio agents Iraq now has, the dossier lists these little gems as highlights of Iraq's weapons;
"*Anthrax is a disease caused by the bacterium Bacillus Anthracis.Inhalation
anthrax is the manifestation of the disease likely to be expected in biological
warfare.The symptoms may vary,but can include fever and internal
bleeding.The incubation period for anthrax is 1 to 7 days,with most cases
occurring within 2 days of exposure.
*Botulinum toxin is one of the most toxic substances known to man.The first
symptoms of poisoning may appear as early as 1 hour post exposure or as late
as 8 days after exposure,with the incubation period between 12 and 22 hours.
Paralysis leads to death by suffocation.
*Aflatoxins are fungal toxins,which are potent carcinogens.Most symptoms
take a long time to show.Food products contaminated by aflatoxins can cause
liver inflammation and cancer.They can also affect pregnant women,leading
to stillborn babies and children born with mutations.
*Ricin is derived from the castor bean and can cause multiple organ failure
leading to death within one or two days of inhalation."
Thats just what we know about. Unleash any of these in a major city and it'll be like hell let loose. People won't be too interested in surgical strikes after an attack - in the case of Britain it'll be sub delivered nuclear warheads, America will probably go for the B2's.
And yes, after Iraq we should look elsewhere, except there aren't too many violent dictators with this kind of human rights record and a desire for WMDS and a desire to hide them. North Korea ? It's trying to get along with South Korea so no problem there ? Taiwan and China - the Chinese know what happens if they ever reach for that place... India and Pakistan ? Again, they're at least talking. Russia ? Just who are they gonna attack ? Chechenya ? Doubtful !
Iraq is the biggest problem and has been for 11 years, but it's been ignored, well, now its all blown up and we have to sort it out, thanks to the UN that sorting out is going to need military force behind it, which could have been avoided.
What's even worse though, is that it's been made trendy to oppose those who seek to move towards peace. It's trendy to be against america, it's trendy to be against Israel, helped along by books which assure everyone how evil these places and people are. That's wrong, and untrue, and whats worse is most won't listen to anyoe that says otherwise (you do thought Goatboy :) )
~~Belldandy~~
> Who's next after Hussein?
> Answer: Check the receipts we have for the weapons we sold.
Nice try ;) During the Iran Iraq war we and America did supply weapons to Iraq, but in exchange we gained data on Soviet weapons/armour. However, these weapons were mostly used up during the Iran Iraq war, and annhilated in the Gulf War.
Intelligence, Balir's speech today, and the dossier, show how Iraq has rebuilt and expanded everything since 1991, and acquired more chemicals and biological weapons, it has tried to buy nuclear material from Milosovich's government before it fell, and may have uranium from Africa.
We aren't guilt for either of those, nor for the bio agents Iraq now has, the dossier lists these little gems as highlights of Iraq's weapons;
"*Anthrax is a disease caused by the bacterium Bacillus Anthracis.Inhalation
anthrax is the manifestation of the disease likely to be expected in biological
warfare.The symptoms may vary,but can include fever and internal
bleeding.The incubation period for anthrax is 1 to 7 days,with most cases
occurring within 2 days of exposure.
*Botulinum toxin is one of the most toxic substances known to man.The first
symptoms of poisoning may appear as early as 1 hour post exposure or as late
as 8 days after exposure,with the incubation period between 12 and 22 hours.
Paralysis leads to death by suffocation.
*Aflatoxins are fungal toxins,which are potent carcinogens.Most symptoms
take a long time to show.Food products contaminated by aflatoxins can cause
liver inflammation and cancer.They can also affect pregnant women,leading
to stillborn babies and children born with mutations.
*Ricin is derived from the castor bean and can cause multiple organ failure
leading to death within one or two days of inhalation."
Thats just what we know about. Unleash any of these in a major city and it'll be like hell let loose. People won't be too interested in surgical strikes after an attack - in the case of Britain it'll be sub delivered nuclear warheads, America will probably go for the B2's.
And yes, after Iraq we should look elsewhere, except there aren't too many violent dictators with this kind of human rights record and a desire for WMDS and a desire to hide them. North Korea ? It's trying to get along with South Korea so no problem there ? Taiwan and China - the Chinese know what happens if they ever reach for that place... India and Pakistan ? Again, they're at least talking. Russia ? Just who are they gonna attack ? Chechenya ? Doubtful !
Iraq is the biggest problem and has been for 11 years, but it's been ignored, well, now its all blown up and we have to sort it out, thanks to the UN that sorting out is going to need military force behind it, which could have been avoided.
What's even worse though, is that it's been made trendy to oppose those who seek to move towards peace. It's trendy to be against america, it's trendy to be against Israel, helped along by books which assure everyone how evil these places and people are. That's wrong, and untrue, and whats worse is most won't listen to anyoe that says otherwise (you do thought Goatboy :) )
~~Belldandy~~
Page: