The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
RM18 wrote:
> Your thoughts, please.
I agree with much of what you say. I'm no great fan of the US; in fact, in many ways I am quite anti-American. I also think GWB is a warmongering goon.
However, I am completely in agreement with the plans for Iraq. It's something which I believe should have been done much sooner.
What I don't understand is that he (Saddam) is potentially months away from missiles which could deliver chemical agents to a number of surrounding countries - and potentially also the UK in a little more time - and no-one wants to do anything about it.
The hand-wringing goody-goody's would apparently rather wait until such a strike is made before going in and doing something about it. There was some pillock on TV the other day saying that 'we're not in the business of attcking sovreign states, that's why we don't attack India and Pakistan'.
As I see it, the reason we don't attack those two nations is that - unlike Saddam - they aren't likely to toss a nuke into anyone except each other. No more likely than the US and USSR were during the Cold War.
Saddam on the other hand has already invaded Kuwait, so who knows what would happen if he had these chemical/nuclear weapons. Suppose he was to have them ready tomorrow, and threatened Saudi Arabia or Egypt? They'd be only too willing to allow US/British troops to establish a base of operations then.
Saddam and those like him are like any other cancer - once you know it exists, you cut it out before any permanent damage is done. You don't leave it to grow, because "Oops, we misjudged it" doesn't save lives.
> Your thoughts, please.
I agree with much of what you say. I'm no great fan of the US; in fact, in many ways I am quite anti-American. I also think GWB is a warmongering goon.
However, I am completely in agreement with the plans for Iraq. It's something which I believe should have been done much sooner.
What I don't understand is that he (Saddam) is potentially months away from missiles which could deliver chemical agents to a number of surrounding countries - and potentially also the UK in a little more time - and no-one wants to do anything about it.
The hand-wringing goody-goody's would apparently rather wait until such a strike is made before going in and doing something about it. There was some pillock on TV the other day saying that 'we're not in the business of attcking sovreign states, that's why we don't attack India and Pakistan'.
As I see it, the reason we don't attack those two nations is that - unlike Saddam - they aren't likely to toss a nuke into anyone except each other. No more likely than the US and USSR were during the Cold War.
Saddam on the other hand has already invaded Kuwait, so who knows what would happen if he had these chemical/nuclear weapons. Suppose he was to have them ready tomorrow, and threatened Saudi Arabia or Egypt? They'd be only too willing to allow US/British troops to establish a base of operations then.
Saddam and those like him are like any other cancer - once you know it exists, you cut it out before any permanent damage is done. You don't leave it to grow, because "Oops, we misjudged it" doesn't save lives.
Freedom of living within a democracy.
It may be limited and flawed, but it's better than obediently and unquestioningly following a government that lacks any democratic accountability to us.
It may be limited and flawed, but it's better than obediently and unquestioningly following a government that lacks any democratic accountability to us.
what freedom is it you people think you have?
Belldandy wrote:
> The environment ? Lets face it, Kyoto isn't working as many countries
> who signed up are making no effort. Russia is selling it's quotas at
> the same time as increasing it's pollution output.
Russia and Canada have finally confimed they're about to ratify the convention (at the World Summit). Once they've done so, it will be fully ratified.
> America spent 40 years in the Cold War ready to sacrifice everything
> to save Europe. Now they ask that we help them and we should give that
> help immediately.
>
> today, Bush addresses the United Nations. We know what Annan will say
> - big mistake by the way - and what Bush is probably going to say -
> I'm guessing a deadline for unconditional weapons inspection or face
> military action. If he does it will come down to this for each
> country. Are you with America or against her ? That's how ordinary
> American will see it, and what will guide future politics in America.
With America or against her? If we sacrifice our principles to unquestioningly follow the US, you can forget Iraq or anyone else for that matter, we'll have already lost our freedom.
> The environment ? Lets face it, Kyoto isn't working as many countries
> who signed up are making no effort. Russia is selling it's quotas at
> the same time as increasing it's pollution output.
Russia and Canada have finally confimed they're about to ratify the convention (at the World Summit). Once they've done so, it will be fully ratified.
> America spent 40 years in the Cold War ready to sacrifice everything
> to save Europe. Now they ask that we help them and we should give that
> help immediately.
>
> today, Bush addresses the United Nations. We know what Annan will say
> - big mistake by the way - and what Bush is probably going to say -
> I'm guessing a deadline for unconditional weapons inspection or face
> military action. If he does it will come down to this for each
> country. Are you with America or against her ? That's how ordinary
> American will see it, and what will guide future politics in America.
With America or against her? If we sacrifice our principles to unquestioningly follow the US, you can forget Iraq or anyone else for that matter, we'll have already lost our freedom.
It's worth noting that a later addition to the Steel Tariffs excluded the UK from the tariffs by not placing charges on the types produced in the UK.
The environment ? Lets face it, Kyoto isn't working as many countries who signed up are making no effort. Russia is selling it's quotas at the same time as increasing it's pollution output.
Former Soviet Sattelites eh ? Good luck on that. The main industry in these wonderful places is farming, highly unproductive and inefficent farming at that. These countries will need so much EU aid that any benefit will be destroyed by the increased taxes needed to pay these countries in farming aid. The manufacturing industry in these former soviet areas does exist, most of it needs massive upgrading and the workforce needs plenty of training to bring it up to scratch.
Iraq; theres plenty of misplaced faith in Iraq. Europe has this terrible problem in that we always prepare for the last war. Leaders in France and Germany are still looking suspiciously for Russian tanks bounding over hte horizon. It isn't going to happen and we know it ! Take a map. Look how close Europe is to Iraq, look how close the USA is. Now, ask yourself, if you had medium range ICBMS would you;
a) fire them at Israel, who would retaliate and annhilate you.
b) fire them at the USA and watch them fall short and drop into the sea useless.
c) fire them at Europe, an area that does not have any real means of attacking you back without US support.
America spent 40 years in the Cold War ready to sacrifice everything to save Europe. Now they ask that we help them and we should give that help immediately.
today, Bush addresses the United Nations. We know what Annan will say - big mistake by the way - and what Bush is probably going to say - I'm guessing a deadline for unconditional weapons inspection or face military action. If he does it will come down to this for each country. Are you with America or against her ? That's how ordinary American will see it, and what will guide future politics in America.
We know Tony Blair is with America, and we'll see benefits from that in the future, as for the rest of Europe...we'll soon find out who our friends are.....
~~Belldandy~~
The environment ? Lets face it, Kyoto isn't working as many countries who signed up are making no effort. Russia is selling it's quotas at the same time as increasing it's pollution output.
Former Soviet Sattelites eh ? Good luck on that. The main industry in these wonderful places is farming, highly unproductive and inefficent farming at that. These countries will need so much EU aid that any benefit will be destroyed by the increased taxes needed to pay these countries in farming aid. The manufacturing industry in these former soviet areas does exist, most of it needs massive upgrading and the workforce needs plenty of training to bring it up to scratch.
Iraq; theres plenty of misplaced faith in Iraq. Europe has this terrible problem in that we always prepare for the last war. Leaders in France and Germany are still looking suspiciously for Russian tanks bounding over hte horizon. It isn't going to happen and we know it ! Take a map. Look how close Europe is to Iraq, look how close the USA is. Now, ask yourself, if you had medium range ICBMS would you;
a) fire them at Israel, who would retaliate and annhilate you.
b) fire them at the USA and watch them fall short and drop into the sea useless.
c) fire them at Europe, an area that does not have any real means of attacking you back without US support.
America spent 40 years in the Cold War ready to sacrifice everything to save Europe. Now they ask that we help them and we should give that help immediately.
today, Bush addresses the United Nations. We know what Annan will say - big mistake by the way - and what Bush is probably going to say - I'm guessing a deadline for unconditional weapons inspection or face military action. If he does it will come down to this for each country. Are you with America or against her ? That's how ordinary American will see it, and what will guide future politics in America.
We know Tony Blair is with America, and we'll see benefits from that in the future, as for the rest of Europe...we'll soon find out who our friends are.....
~~Belldandy~~
When the former soviet satellite states join the EU, we'll have a pleantiful supply of cheaper (single market) steel and other resources. Not good news for domestic producers, but enables us to get by without american supply.
No problems in cutting america off.
That may have motivated america to their steel actions though, the threat of lessening the export market, so they improve the status of their internal options.
On the other wider point, i'd agree too. Regardless of what you consider to be right or wrong, consistancy seems to be an underlying principle - do unto others and all that.
Sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world as they churn out pollutants, while cutting off fair trade and ignoring international obligations is one thing.
Turning around and demanding help at the same time just seems out of line.
No problems in cutting america off.
That may have motivated america to their steel actions though, the threat of lessening the export market, so they improve the status of their internal options.
On the other wider point, i'd agree too. Regardless of what you consider to be right or wrong, consistancy seems to be an underlying principle - do unto others and all that.
Sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world as they churn out pollutants, while cutting off fair trade and ignoring international obligations is one thing.
Turning around and demanding help at the same time just seems out of line.
I agree with you. Just because they are the most powerful country in the world they seem to take advantage of this. I dont blame them though about the Steel, because if i was leader of a country i would have to think of my own country before others. Its a dog eat dog world, where the biggest dog will nearly always win.
g
g
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: