The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Going off on a slight tangent here...
Have you seen that new advert for Starburst Flipsters? The face of the chimp at the end of the advert... really reminds me of GWB.
Have you seen that new advert for Starburst Flipsters? The face of the chimp at the end of the advert... really reminds me of GWB.
I think all this could have been avoided had the Americans:
a) Got a better electoral system (Gore got more votes, yet we have an ape as the President?)
b) Elected Gore, who could have skilfully played the situation, instead of Suzanne from Jay and Silent Bob disgused as Bush trying to hit the red button frantically.
I sympathise with the victims of 9/11, I really do. It's terrible. But it transcends nations - it's about people at a core level. But America has used it as an excuse. And thats just immoral.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am anti-American.
a) Got a better electoral system (Gore got more votes, yet we have an ape as the President?)
b) Elected Gore, who could have skilfully played the situation, instead of Suzanne from Jay and Silent Bob disgused as Bush trying to hit the red button frantically.
I sympathise with the victims of 9/11, I really do. It's terrible. But it transcends nations - it's about people at a core level. But America has used it as an excuse. And thats just immoral.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am anti-American.
Er....have you watched the news like, this year ?
I could detail all the various tapes, such as last week's, which prove conclusively Bin Laden did do this. If you've seen all this evidence then I think you're new best buddy is Scott Ritter........
~~Belldandy~~
I could detail all the various tapes, such as last week's, which prove conclusively Bin Laden did do this. If you've seen all this evidence then I think you're new best buddy is Scott Ritter........
~~Belldandy~~
There wasnt any evidence for Bin Laden actually planning it all....
Right fair enough
I respect you both for actually giving a damn about the world unlike so many.
I'm just fed up talking about it so I'm not going to start an argument.
I'll have my view and you yours
I respect you both for actually giving a damn about the world unlike so many.
I'm just fed up talking about it so I'm not going to start an argument.
I'll have my view and you yours
No. I never said that.
I'm saying;
1) No war was ever fought without civilian death.
2) The defender in such a war can lower civilian deaths by locating outside of civilian areas rather than hiding in them.
3) Against an enemy which isn't a formal army then the line of who is a civlian and combatant is blurred.
4) Facts are only usefull if verified, rather than from a source that is aligned with one of the sides in a confict.
5) Blame for civilian deaths lies with the side that could have done the most to avoid them - clearly the Taliban in this case.
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.
All those against military action ignore this one simple fact. The Taliban were given 1 WHOLE MONTH to surrender and hand over Bin Laden or tell us where to get him. They did not. America stated the consequences o not doing so, NATO enacted it MDT, the UN Security Council passed the necessary resolution. It was staggeringly clear that to not surrender was virtual suicide. They didnt.
Please give a good reason why the Taliban could not decide on surrender given the collosal military might that was obviously going to fall upon them ? Well, can anyone ? I've been waiting since October 7th last year nd I haven't heard it yet......
~~Belldandy~~
I'm saying;
1) No war was ever fought without civilian death.
2) The defender in such a war can lower civilian deaths by locating outside of civilian areas rather than hiding in them.
3) Against an enemy which isn't a formal army then the line of who is a civlian and combatant is blurred.
4) Facts are only usefull if verified, rather than from a source that is aligned with one of the sides in a confict.
5) Blame for civilian deaths lies with the side that could have done the most to avoid them - clearly the Taliban in this case.
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.
All those against military action ignore this one simple fact. The Taliban were given 1 WHOLE MONTH to surrender and hand over Bin Laden or tell us where to get him. They did not. America stated the consequences o not doing so, NATO enacted it MDT, the UN Security Council passed the necessary resolution. It was staggeringly clear that to not surrender was virtual suicide. They didnt.
Please give a good reason why the Taliban could not decide on surrender given the collosal military might that was obviously going to fall upon them ? Well, can anyone ? I've been waiting since October 7th last year nd I haven't heard it yet......
~~Belldandy~~
SHEEPY wrote:
> So basically you value an American life more than an Afgan one
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Any 'army' happy to hind behind the human shield of civilians is not an army at all. It didn't work for the Iraqi's in Desert Storm, nor for al-Quaeda in Enduring Freedom.
The minute you refuse to attack such an 'army', they have won. You just need to minimise civilian casualties as much as possible. It's not a question of valuing one life over another. Just remember that the troops in Afghanistan did not *set out* to kill civilians - unlike those who hijacked the planes last September.
If you have a problem with the death of those civilians, blame the terrorists hiding behind them, not the troops atacking them. If these loons had any balls at all, they wouldn't feel the need to hide among innocents.
> So basically you value an American life more than an Afgan one
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Any 'army' happy to hind behind the human shield of civilians is not an army at all. It didn't work for the Iraqi's in Desert Storm, nor for al-Quaeda in Enduring Freedom.
The minute you refuse to attack such an 'army', they have won. You just need to minimise civilian casualties as much as possible. It's not a question of valuing one life over another. Just remember that the troops in Afghanistan did not *set out* to kill civilians - unlike those who hijacked the planes last September.
If you have a problem with the death of those civilians, blame the terrorists hiding behind them, not the troops atacking them. If these loons had any balls at all, they wouldn't feel the need to hide among innocents.
So basically you value an American life more than an Afgan one
SHEEPY wrote:
> More innocent people were killed in Afganistan than on September
> 11th
>
> Hyyypoooccrrritttteeesss
Really ? These figures of close to 3000 as of March 2002 haven't been independently verified by anyone trustworthy such as the UN.
In Afghanistan, with no formal army prior to the defeat of the Taliban, civilians were combatants in many cases, doing civilian jobs at day, fighting at night. It is clear that the Taliban, whilst in power, vastly overestimated civilian casualties. Yes there were civilian casualties but Sheepy, if you can show me a war where civilians haven't been killed, then go ahead.
When an enemy chooses to hide command & control, AA units and prisoners in civilian areas then that will happen. Did the coalition order the Taliban to situate in those areas ? No. Did the Taliban have 1 month to surrender before coalition action ? Yes. Did they, knowing full well the civilian toll any war would cause ? No. Was it a stated objective of the coalition in Enduring Freedom to kill civilians ? No. Was it a stated objective of Al Queda to kill civilians on 9/11 and US personnel in Afghanistan after that ? Yes.
Al Queda and the Taliban started the war in Afghanistan. They had a chance to avert it - 1 month. They didn't and every civilian casualty in Afghanistan is more on their conscience that ours, but guess what ? They don't have a conscience.
~~Belldandy~~
> More innocent people were killed in Afganistan than on September
> 11th
>
> Hyyypoooccrrritttteeesss
Really ? These figures of close to 3000 as of March 2002 haven't been independently verified by anyone trustworthy such as the UN.
In Afghanistan, with no formal army prior to the defeat of the Taliban, civilians were combatants in many cases, doing civilian jobs at day, fighting at night. It is clear that the Taliban, whilst in power, vastly overestimated civilian casualties. Yes there were civilian casualties but Sheepy, if you can show me a war where civilians haven't been killed, then go ahead.
When an enemy chooses to hide command & control, AA units and prisoners in civilian areas then that will happen. Did the coalition order the Taliban to situate in those areas ? No. Did the Taliban have 1 month to surrender before coalition action ? Yes. Did they, knowing full well the civilian toll any war would cause ? No. Was it a stated objective of the coalition in Enduring Freedom to kill civilians ? No. Was it a stated objective of Al Queda to kill civilians on 9/11 and US personnel in Afghanistan after that ? Yes.
Al Queda and the Taliban started the war in Afghanistan. They had a chance to avert it - 1 month. They didn't and every civilian casualty in Afghanistan is more on their conscience that ours, but guess what ? They don't have a conscience.
~~Belldandy~~
More innocent people were killed in Afganistan than on September 11th
Hyyypoooccrrritttteeesss
Hyyypoooccrrritttteeesss
Page: