The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
unknown kernel wrote:
> Well this is why people want weapons inspectors back into the country.
> Iraq has offered to let them return unconditionally. I think this an
> opportunity that should be grabbed with both hands; unfortunately the
> US and UK have reacted very negatively to this...
That's because Iraq has been saying this for 11 years. What we should do is stop playing around, give the UN one week to either produce a resolution authorsing military force or the USA and the UK will go in alone. Iraq's playing for time, and you only play for time when you need that time. We're talking about WMDs here, you only play for time with them if you need that time to hide or use them. Anyone who says this is a chance for peace needs to see what happened in 1939. The UN resolutions were broken for 11 years now, it's time to act, before its too late. Bare in mind this is only an offer, and if you've seen the full speech by Annan then you'll know the final sentence leaves Iraq room to change these conditions at will. As for the USA not signing or agreeing to similar - I don't care. I know that the USA will not decide to randomly attack via terrorism a population centre. Iraq will, and the peacemakers are giving Iraq that chance right now.
> As for Israel, there is one route to peace that remains untested: an
> end to occupation and the dismantling of those illegally built
> settlements. Worth a try I would have thought.
Yeah, there's also: stop using suicide bombers against civilian targets, stop laying ambushes for our patrols, stop using snipers to kill civilians at random, stop giving aid to terrorist groups, start condeming radical groups like Islamic Jihad...... They might be worth a try as well. Both sides need to build up trust, for Israel that won't happen whilst bombers continue hitting bus stops, for Palestinians that won't happen until the occupied lands are given back. Vicious circle. Personally I think the UN should deploy peace keepers to form a buffer zone and take charge of the occupied territories, neither side would own it then and if the UN can police it right they can stop the suicide bombers and get both sides talking.
~~Belldandy~~
> Well this is why people want weapons inspectors back into the country.
> Iraq has offered to let them return unconditionally. I think this an
> opportunity that should be grabbed with both hands; unfortunately the
> US and UK have reacted very negatively to this...
That's because Iraq has been saying this for 11 years. What we should do is stop playing around, give the UN one week to either produce a resolution authorsing military force or the USA and the UK will go in alone. Iraq's playing for time, and you only play for time when you need that time. We're talking about WMDs here, you only play for time with them if you need that time to hide or use them. Anyone who says this is a chance for peace needs to see what happened in 1939. The UN resolutions were broken for 11 years now, it's time to act, before its too late. Bare in mind this is only an offer, and if you've seen the full speech by Annan then you'll know the final sentence leaves Iraq room to change these conditions at will. As for the USA not signing or agreeing to similar - I don't care. I know that the USA will not decide to randomly attack via terrorism a population centre. Iraq will, and the peacemakers are giving Iraq that chance right now.
> As for Israel, there is one route to peace that remains untested: an
> end to occupation and the dismantling of those illegally built
> settlements. Worth a try I would have thought.
Yeah, there's also: stop using suicide bombers against civilian targets, stop laying ambushes for our patrols, stop using snipers to kill civilians at random, stop giving aid to terrorist groups, start condeming radical groups like Islamic Jihad...... They might be worth a try as well. Both sides need to build up trust, for Israel that won't happen whilst bombers continue hitting bus stops, for Palestinians that won't happen until the occupied lands are given back. Vicious circle. Personally I think the UN should deploy peace keepers to form a buffer zone and take charge of the occupied territories, neither side would own it then and if the UN can police it right they can stop the suicide bombers and get both sides talking.
~~Belldandy~~
Al Gore winning the election would have been worse. Bill Clintons response in the past was basically throw cruise missiles at everything you thought was a target, back in 1999 (might have wrong date) Clinton retaliated to an Ebassy bombing by launching 10 cruise missiles at the training camp...when the UN rolled up one week later there was no trace of the camp, or even anything alive.
Had Gore been in office on 9/11 then it's likely that the US response would have occured on 9/12-17 rather than 7/10. It's also likely this response would have been in the form of USAF Strategic Air Command's B2 Stealth Bombers with nuclear payloads - wave goodbye to the Tora Bora area, Kandahar, and all the other population centres in Afghanistan.
The Clinton administration always showed a liking for a quick, devestating reponse to situations, whereas Bush has been restrained so far, though if the UN doesn't get into gear over Iraq I fear that leash will snap...
~~Belldandy~~
Had Gore been in office on 9/11 then it's likely that the US response would have occured on 9/12-17 rather than 7/10. It's also likely this response would have been in the form of USAF Strategic Air Command's B2 Stealth Bombers with nuclear payloads - wave goodbye to the Tora Bora area, Kandahar, and all the other population centres in Afghanistan.
The Clinton administration always showed a liking for a quick, devestating reponse to situations, whereas Bush has been restrained so far, though if the UN doesn't get into gear over Iraq I fear that leash will snap...
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> #1 It isn't murder if Iraqi civlians are killed in any campaign in the
> Gulf unless the UN/USA comes out and says, were going to bomb
> civilians. Civilians hit by the aftereffects of a bomb, but who were
> not targetted on purpose are the victims of, at best, manslaughter.
>
> Realistically they are collateral damage.
This doesn't convince me at all. Imagine drinking ten pints, getting in your car, then driving around at sixty miles an hour. You kill someone: are you innocent, or - because you know the likely outcome of your actions - are you culpable? My instinct says you are responsible for your actions. And, since we know from previous bombing campaigns that many civilians WILL die, we have to be willing to accept our part in those deaths. Call it murder, call it manslaughter - both are morally indefensible - but don't use that Orwellian phrase "collaterel damage" to describe the deaths of innocents.
> If Iraq has nothing to hide then why hide anything ?
> If Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons programme why does it have at
> least 2 sites confirmed as being (By the UN and USA) suited to nuclear
> weapons production ?
Well this is why people want weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq has offered to let them return unconditionally. I think this an opportunity that should be grabbed with both hands; unfortunately the US and UK have reacted very negatively to this, suggesting that, for all the talk of diplomacy and international co-operation, military action is a first rather than a last resort. We should remember, too, that mistrust has built up on BOTH sides, especially over the inspection teams close 'co-operation' with Israeli and American secret services. Personally, I'd rather that trust was rebuilt diplomatically. (And Bush, of course, won't sign the chemical and biological weapons treaty without a veto on what sites can be inspected - sound familiar?)
As for Israel, there is one route to peace that remains untested: an end to occupation and the dismantling of those illegally built settlements. Worth a try I would have thought.
> #1 It isn't murder if Iraqi civlians are killed in any campaign in the
> Gulf unless the UN/USA comes out and says, were going to bomb
> civilians. Civilians hit by the aftereffects of a bomb, but who were
> not targetted on purpose are the victims of, at best, manslaughter.
>
> Realistically they are collateral damage.
This doesn't convince me at all. Imagine drinking ten pints, getting in your car, then driving around at sixty miles an hour. You kill someone: are you innocent, or - because you know the likely outcome of your actions - are you culpable? My instinct says you are responsible for your actions. And, since we know from previous bombing campaigns that many civilians WILL die, we have to be willing to accept our part in those deaths. Call it murder, call it manslaughter - both are morally indefensible - but don't use that Orwellian phrase "collaterel damage" to describe the deaths of innocents.
> If Iraq has nothing to hide then why hide anything ?
> If Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons programme why does it have at
> least 2 sites confirmed as being (By the UN and USA) suited to nuclear
> weapons production ?
Well this is why people want weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq has offered to let them return unconditionally. I think this an opportunity that should be grabbed with both hands; unfortunately the US and UK have reacted very negatively to this, suggesting that, for all the talk of diplomacy and international co-operation, military action is a first rather than a last resort. We should remember, too, that mistrust has built up on BOTH sides, especially over the inspection teams close 'co-operation' with Israeli and American secret services. Personally, I'd rather that trust was rebuilt diplomatically. (And Bush, of course, won't sign the chemical and biological weapons treaty without a veto on what sites can be inspected - sound familiar?)
As for Israel, there is one route to peace that remains untested: an end to occupation and the dismantling of those illegally built settlements. Worth a try I would have thought.
A quick question - what would have happened if George Bush lost the presidential election back in 2001? That's a good question, because George Bush is much more of a nationalist. Stupid America :@
#1 It isn't murder if Iraqi civlians are killed in any campaign in the Gulf unless the UN/USA comes out and says, were going to bomb civilians. Civilians hit by the aftereffects of a bomb, but who were not targetted on purpose are the victims of, at best, manslaughter.
Realistically they are collateral damage.
If Iraq has nothing to hide then why hide anything ?
If Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons programme why does it have at least 2 sites confirmed as being (By the UN and USA) suited to nuclear weapons production ?
Israel may have violated some human rights, but this a country that's lost thousands of it's people to terrorism whilst the peacemakers in the West tell them to wait for diplomatic solutions to the troubles there. Yes, the Palestinians have lost people too, but I don't side with the guy's who use sucide bombers, children as fighters, and who purposfully target civilians instead of people who would fight back....and if a Palestinian throws a stone at a guy with an M16 more fool him.
~~Belldandy~~
Realistically they are collateral damage.
If Iraq has nothing to hide then why hide anything ?
If Iraq does not have a nuclear weapons programme why does it have at least 2 sites confirmed as being (By the UN and USA) suited to nuclear weapons production ?
Israel may have violated some human rights, but this a country that's lost thousands of it's people to terrorism whilst the peacemakers in the West tell them to wait for diplomatic solutions to the troubles there. Yes, the Palestinians have lost people too, but I don't side with the guy's who use sucide bombers, children as fighters, and who purposfully target civilians instead of people who would fight back....and if a Palestinian throws a stone at a guy with an M16 more fool him.
~~Belldandy~~
Fountain of Knowledge wrote:
> Last point: the guy before who was quoting ariel sharon's flouting of
> UN regulations, should remember that by the same rationale, there is
> no debate over the legitimacy of war with iraq, because they have
> breached UN rules (if they even know what they are) immeasurably more
> so than israel has. So don't have one rule for one and another rule
> for another. Also, you shouldn't join a bangwagon before you know what
> you're talking about.
No. Israel has been consistently and brutally in breach of UN resolutions for many decades. If you want a list of these then go see www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/UNresolutions.html
But I am not calling for military action against Israel, and nor is anyone else. By YOUR rationale we should be bombing both Tel Aviv and Baghdad: not by mine. My post was pointing out the double standards in US-UK policy, not suggesting war with Israel, Pakistan, China et al.
As for bandwagon jumping: I believe it was the political left - not the warmongers who sold Saddam arms - who first protested about human rights abuses in Iraq. Now the same atrocities that were ignored and condoned by the West are used as justification for the murder of Iraqi civilians.
> Last point: the guy before who was quoting ariel sharon's flouting of
> UN regulations, should remember that by the same rationale, there is
> no debate over the legitimacy of war with iraq, because they have
> breached UN rules (if they even know what they are) immeasurably more
> so than israel has. So don't have one rule for one and another rule
> for another. Also, you shouldn't join a bangwagon before you know what
> you're talking about.
No. Israel has been consistently and brutally in breach of UN resolutions for many decades. If you want a list of these then go see www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/UNresolutions.html
But I am not calling for military action against Israel, and nor is anyone else. By YOUR rationale we should be bombing both Tel Aviv and Baghdad: not by mine. My post was pointing out the double standards in US-UK policy, not suggesting war with Israel, Pakistan, China et al.
As for bandwagon jumping: I believe it was the political left - not the warmongers who sold Saddam arms - who first protested about human rights abuses in Iraq. Now the same atrocities that were ignored and condoned by the West are used as justification for the murder of Iraqi civilians.
Ho hum....UN Nuclear Weapons Team in Vienna just confirmed another possible site Iraq is using to develop nuclear weapons, cannot verify unless a ground team can see it firsthand though. Also, the Arab nations are coming around and the Saudi's will give supprt as long as America gets a UN resolution - which it will now.
Oh, respect to Otaku Mr Ripper, but not completely ;)
~~Belldandy~~
Oh, respect to Otaku Mr Ripper, but not completely ;)
~~Belldandy~~
Point #1: No world leaders are perfect, exempt from criticism, or 100% consistent and never hypocritical. All you can hope for is that they do a good job and represent your country's interests as best as possible, acting lawfully and reasonably. They're still going to make mistakes, but you hope that these are a few as possible, since they are human.
So when people start quoting statistics and talking about us helping the Taliban etc, fine, we made a foul-up of it, but politics is about money, power, compromise and making decisions that might potentially affect the lives of millions of people. So whatever decision was taken was taken for a reason, whatever that may be.
You have to deal with the clear and present day, history is to be remembered and respected, but it is not a blueprint for future events.
As things stand, Iraq is a very dangerous country. I don't like a lot of what bush/blair do, in fact i like very little. But i still have faith that they would act responsibly and not just bomb indiscriminately or because they want to purposefully kill and maim civilians, as terrorists do (hence the name).
Last point: the guy before who was quoting ariel sharon's flouting of UN regulations, should remember that by the same rationale, there is no debate over the legitimacy of war with iraq, because they have breached UN rules (if they even know what they are) immeasurably more so than israel has. So don't have one rule for one and another rule for another. Also, you shouldn't join a bangwagon before you know what you're talking about.
*tapping his nose*
So when people start quoting statistics and talking about us helping the Taliban etc, fine, we made a foul-up of it, but politics is about money, power, compromise and making decisions that might potentially affect the lives of millions of people. So whatever decision was taken was taken for a reason, whatever that may be.
You have to deal with the clear and present day, history is to be remembered and respected, but it is not a blueprint for future events.
As things stand, Iraq is a very dangerous country. I don't like a lot of what bush/blair do, in fact i like very little. But i still have faith that they would act responsibly and not just bomb indiscriminately or because they want to purposefully kill and maim civilians, as terrorists do (hence the name).
Last point: the guy before who was quoting ariel sharon's flouting of UN regulations, should remember that by the same rationale, there is no debate over the legitimacy of war with iraq, because they have breached UN rules (if they even know what they are) immeasurably more so than israel has. So don't have one rule for one and another rule for another. Also, you shouldn't join a bangwagon before you know what you're talking about.
*tapping his nose*
No. I can take another point of view, when that point of view has something worth listening to and evidence to back up claims, which by and large the BBC's efforts fail to do, generally being an all out verbal assault on America whilst pretending Britain is perfect. We aren't, not by a long shot.
Also, the BBC never fairly balances and program, it's like "here we have 200 anti american people in the audience who want to look clever on TV asking the same stupid cliche rubbish that anyone with any brains knows the answer to already against one person who represents America. Discuss". Mindless Broadcasting Corporation is more like it......
~~Belldandy~~
Also, the BBC never fairly balances and program, it's like "here we have 200 anti american people in the audience who want to look clever on TV asking the same stupid cliche rubbish that anyone with any brains knows the answer to already against one person who represents America. Discuss". Mindless Broadcasting Corporation is more like it......
~~Belldandy~~
Why, can't take another point of view?
Page: