The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
With the emotionally charged atmosphere as we remember the attacks of last year, support for America is high, perhaps at one of the highest points it has ever been. Co-inciding with this anniversary (or is it coincidence - anyway, that's another story), talk is rife about Iraq and potential military action, with Messrs Blair and Bush the most vocal.
President Bush has spent the majority of the last month (publicly, probably longer privately) trying to convince world leaders, not to mention ordinary people, that an attack on Iraq is the way to go, despite the fact that the loss of innocent life will be comparable, if not surpass the loss of live on Sep 11 (I wonder if there will be an anniversary for those deaths...). In recent days Bush has become increasingly vociferous in his condemnation of Iraq, and how the rest of the world should support him.
My point is this. At the recent world summit in sustainable development in Johannesburg, America and Bush were practically non-existent, save a speech by 'Coleeen' Powell on the last day. America aren't showing any support for environmental or poverty issues, yet they expect everyone else to come running to help when they want to start another war? Similarly, they place a steel embargo on European steel to protect their own interests, and to hell with everyone else, but now they need help, tehy expect total support. This is just not on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American, but this annoys me. Your thoughts, please.
President Bush has spent the majority of the last month (publicly, probably longer privately) trying to convince world leaders, not to mention ordinary people, that an attack on Iraq is the way to go, despite the fact that the loss of innocent life will be comparable, if not surpass the loss of live on Sep 11 (I wonder if there will be an anniversary for those deaths...). In recent days Bush has become increasingly vociferous in his condemnation of Iraq, and how the rest of the world should support him.
My point is this. At the recent world summit in sustainable development in Johannesburg, America and Bush were practically non-existent, save a speech by 'Coleeen' Powell on the last day. America aren't showing any support for environmental or poverty issues, yet they expect everyone else to come running to help when they want to start another war? Similarly, they place a steel embargo on European steel to protect their own interests, and to hell with everyone else, but now they need help, tehy expect total support. This is just not on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American, but this annoys me. Your thoughts, please.
Page:
Yeah, I see what you mean and you're right about the positive aspects of the campaign in Afghanistan not completely cancelling out the negative effects it had - such as civilian casualties.
I just don't see any other way it could have been done - if it'd have been Al Gore's presidency then it would probably just have been the "how many cruise missiles can we fire at them on 12/9" option.....
~~Belldandy~
I just don't see any other way it could have been done - if it'd have been Al Gore's presidency then it would probably just have been the "how many cruise missiles can we fire at them on 12/9" option.....
~~Belldandy~
Belldandy wrote:
> America did not choose to go into it. Having 3000 people of many
> nationalities killed in one day forced America and her allies to take
> action against those who helped commit the crime.
Think this is one of those points where it'll have to come down to 'We disagree. Fair enough.'
Besides, cna you
> honestly say that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban ?
No, i agree that overall America's actions were for the best. I just don't think the positive aspects should be seen to clean anyone's hands of their responsibility for things which, if isolated, would be considered 'wrongs'.
Yes, overall, much good has come of their actions.
But they chose their lesser of two evils. They opted to cause some bad stuff to happen. While i stress that i do believe it was for the best overall, they still chose their course of action, they didn't have their hand forced (no circumstances which, with regard to this, i would consider to have forced their hand anyway), so while they are heroes to some, the blood is still on their hands.
I know i've struggled to express this, but hopefully you can see what i mean, whether you agree or not.
> America did not choose to go into it. Having 3000 people of many
> nationalities killed in one day forced America and her allies to take
> action against those who helped commit the crime.
Think this is one of those points where it'll have to come down to 'We disagree. Fair enough.'
Besides, cna you
> honestly say that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban ?
No, i agree that overall America's actions were for the best. I just don't think the positive aspects should be seen to clean anyone's hands of their responsibility for things which, if isolated, would be considered 'wrongs'.
Yes, overall, much good has come of their actions.
But they chose their lesser of two evils. They opted to cause some bad stuff to happen. While i stress that i do believe it was for the best overall, they still chose their course of action, they didn't have their hand forced (no circumstances which, with regard to this, i would consider to have forced their hand anyway), so while they are heroes to some, the blood is still on their hands.
I know i've struggled to express this, but hopefully you can see what i mean, whether you agree or not.
Dr Duck wrote:
> It took both sides to allow the war to happen. While the Taliban have
> a degree of blame for letting the war happen (by not surrendering),
> America also chose to go into it, and so too have a degree (not to get
> bogged down in how great a degree :^) ) of blame.
America did not choose to go into it. Having 3000 people of many nationalities killed in one day forced America and her allies to take action against those who helped commit the crime. One month was given for surrender. The Taliban chose not to surrender. Besides, cna you honestly say that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban ? the Human rights groups forget one thing - under Taliban rule roughly 10-20 000 civilians were killed (by shooting, beheading, stoning, starvation, torture, rape) or "disappeared" in Afghanistan, many of them women and children. Under Taliban rule an estimated 2 million Afghani's fled the country, now the UNHCR has reported 1.3 million have returned to Afghanistan - the largest reverse flow of refugees in history.
Taking another point, if a small British group killed some Americans then I have no doubt out own Special Forces would be deployed to neutralise them. On another note "some" is rather a bad choice of word for 3000 people of many nations.......
~~Belldandy~~
> It took both sides to allow the war to happen. While the Taliban have
> a degree of blame for letting the war happen (by not surrendering),
> America also chose to go into it, and so too have a degree (not to get
> bogged down in how great a degree :^) ) of blame.
America did not choose to go into it. Having 3000 people of many nationalities killed in one day forced America and her allies to take action against those who helped commit the crime. One month was given for surrender. The Taliban chose not to surrender. Besides, cna you honestly say that Afghanistan was better under the Taliban ? the Human rights groups forget one thing - under Taliban rule roughly 10-20 000 civilians were killed (by shooting, beheading, stoning, starvation, torture, rape) or "disappeared" in Afghanistan, many of them women and children. Under Taliban rule an estimated 2 million Afghani's fled the country, now the UNHCR has reported 1.3 million have returned to Afghanistan - the largest reverse flow of refugees in history.
Taking another point, if a small British group killed some Americans then I have no doubt out own Special Forces would be deployed to neutralise them. On another note "some" is rather a bad choice of word for 3000 people of many nations.......
~~Belldandy~~
American policy is annoying.
They go on about their loss, bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, and plan to do the same to Iraq!
Could you imagine what would happen to us if a small British group killed some Americans?
They go on about their loss, bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, and plan to do the same to Iraq!
Could you imagine what would happen to us if a small British group killed some Americans?
true it takes 2 sides to start a war but it only takes one to stop it. If the taliban had handed Osama Bin Laden over then Afghanistan might not have so many bomb craters then it has today.
Belldandy wrote:
> I think it is really realy stupid to say America could have
> surrendered to the Taliban, don't you ? There's still been no
> convincing reason why the Taliban aren't to balme as they ignored a
> chance to surrender.
Yeah, it's a stupid thing to suggest, but that was the point -
It took both sides to allow the war to happen. While the Taliban have a degree of blame for letting the war happen (by not surrendering), America also chose to go into it, and so too have a degree (not to get bogged down in how great a degree :^) ) of blame.
That's what i was tyring to get across.
> I think it is really realy stupid to say America could have
> surrendered to the Taliban, don't you ? There's still been no
> convincing reason why the Taliban aren't to balme as they ignored a
> chance to surrender.
Yeah, it's a stupid thing to suggest, but that was the point -
It took both sides to allow the war to happen. While the Taliban have a degree of blame for letting the war happen (by not surrendering), America also chose to go into it, and so too have a degree (not to get bogged down in how great a degree :^) ) of blame.
That's what i was tyring to get across.
If anyone wants oil there are many many places to go that are one hell of a lot easier than to get at than Iraq.
Africa
Siberia
Alaska
the North Sea
Kuwait
None require military force and all would be politically easier than Iraq.
Iraq is in violation of a multitude of UN resolutions passed by a majority of the UN. Iraq has been in violation of them for over 10 years. The UN has done nothing but appease until this moment. Now is the time for the UN to show it is more than a talking shop.
Saddam is seeking anything to turn any western opinion against action because it is in Saddam's interests that the truth of his WMD program isn't made widely public.
Whatever the arguments, constant breachs of UN resolutions of this magnitude are already grounds for military action under the UN rules.
Why has no nation stated this before ? Because they have, the USA expressed concern repeatedly in 1991, 94,96,98, 99, 2000, 2001 and earlier this year. The UK and other nations have also raised concerns. Scott Ritter, ex head of the UNSCOM group ejected from Iraq once voiced concerns but now has turned traitor to the UN/US/UK and denies he ever made such accusations.
~~Belldandy~~
Africa
Siberia
Alaska
the North Sea
Kuwait
None require military force and all would be politically easier than Iraq.
Iraq is in violation of a multitude of UN resolutions passed by a majority of the UN. Iraq has been in violation of them for over 10 years. The UN has done nothing but appease until this moment. Now is the time for the UN to show it is more than a talking shop.
Saddam is seeking anything to turn any western opinion against action because it is in Saddam's interests that the truth of his WMD program isn't made widely public.
Whatever the arguments, constant breachs of UN resolutions of this magnitude are already grounds for military action under the UN rules.
Why has no nation stated this before ? Because they have, the USA expressed concern repeatedly in 1991, 94,96,98, 99, 2000, 2001 and earlier this year. The UK and other nations have also raised concerns. Scott Ritter, ex head of the UNSCOM group ejected from Iraq once voiced concerns but now has turned traitor to the UN/US/UK and denies he ever made such accusations.
~~Belldandy~~
Of course America are after oil - look through history, many wars have been motivated by future financial gain. If Iraq had no oil,do you think America would be so interested? If they topple Saddam, they will have the chance to form a new government, and gain access to lucrative oil supplies. If you think the motives are simply to topple Saddam and the threat he poses, you are right to an extent, but believing that America's motives are born out of philanthropy and love of mankind is just plain naive.
I think it is really realy stupid to say America could have surrendered to the Taliban, don't you ? There's still been no convincing reason why the Taliban aren't to balme as they ignored a chance to surrender.
The sad thing, is that Saddam now looks set to sacrifice his own people in another conflict. Again, Saddam has been offered the chance to give in to UN resolutions he agreed to. So far evidence in Iraq suggests he is preparing his people for war by insisting the USA and it's allies are after the oil there, which is really stupid in itself...., but with very little strong indpendent media in Iraq the people are believing him.
by saying no war fought has ever excluded civilian deaths I did not mean to say that validated civilian deaths - just pointing out that civilian war deaths happen everywhere, not just where America is concerned. Of course it isn't right, but neither are a lot of things in this world.
~~Belldandy~~
The sad thing, is that Saddam now looks set to sacrifice his own people in another conflict. Again, Saddam has been offered the chance to give in to UN resolutions he agreed to. So far evidence in Iraq suggests he is preparing his people for war by insisting the USA and it's allies are after the oil there, which is really stupid in itself...., but with very little strong indpendent media in Iraq the people are believing him.
by saying no war fought has ever excluded civilian deaths I did not mean to say that validated civilian deaths - just pointing out that civilian war deaths happen everywhere, not just where America is concerned. Of course it isn't right, but neither are a lot of things in this world.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm saying;
> 1) No war was ever fought without civilian death.
That doesn't validate their deaths. It just shows conclusively that America must have been aware of these consequences of their actions.
Try saying 'well it's a war' to a 6 year old child who's just seen their parents crushed in their collapsed home, blown up by a stray US bomb.
Absolutely, unreservedly, no excuse at all.
> All life is of equal value. Many of the Taliban died unneccesarily in
> the conflict because the Al Queda forced them to fight. US and UK
> soldiers died whilst just training out there, reporters were killed
> and so on. A lot of people died that needn't have had the Taliban
> surrendered in the 1 WHOLE MONTH they had to decide that.
Yeah, and they wouldn't have died if America had surrendered to the Taliban either. As i see it, when both sides chose to take actions that they can forsee as leading to fatalities, they both have some degree of the responsibility. The US chose to sacrifice those lives to get to the Taliban forces. REGARDLESS of whether overall it was the right thing to do (and for the record i believe it was), they still chose to make that sacrifice.
On all your other points, i agree with you though.
> I'm saying;
> 1) No war was ever fought without civilian death.
That doesn't validate their deaths. It just shows conclusively that America must have been aware of these consequences of their actions.
Try saying 'well it's a war' to a 6 year old child who's just seen their parents crushed in their collapsed home, blown up by a stray US bomb.
Absolutely, unreservedly, no excuse at all.
> All life is of equal value. Many of the Taliban died unneccesarily in
> the conflict because the Al Queda forced them to fight. US and UK
> soldiers died whilst just training out there, reporters were killed
> and so on. A lot of people died that needn't have had the Taliban
> surrendered in the 1 WHOLE MONTH they had to decide that.
Yeah, and they wouldn't have died if America had surrendered to the Taliban either. As i see it, when both sides chose to take actions that they can forsee as leading to fatalities, they both have some degree of the responsibility. The US chose to sacrifice those lives to get to the Taliban forces. REGARDLESS of whether overall it was the right thing to do (and for the record i believe it was), they still chose to make that sacrifice.
On all your other points, i agree with you though.
Page: