The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I am going to say my opinion on the matter, but carefully as not to upset or offend any people.
I think America going to war against Osama is wrong and right, but more wrong. Retalliation never got the world anywhere, it might make one person feel more secure but can destroy many normal lives, physically and mentally.
I feel sorrow for the 3000 that died on that day, but realistically, if it happened to say Chile or Peru, no one would really care, no one would mark the day or moment, just because its America everyone should have to pay tribute, which i think is silly.
I already know that most of europe has a hatred for America, because they realised that America was doing bad before september 11 ever happend.
America took upon itself the duty to police the world, but no one elected America to do this, since when does one country take control of the world, thats wrong in itself, even if they are serving justice, no one takes on that right.
I think America looks blindly upon Osmamas beliefs and others, although his attitude isnt exactly great, but i think everyone takes things way too seriously, why not just leave the normal people and civilians out of this.
Words can cure anything, War can only cure one mans hatred and desire for pain onto others for what was put upon him.
If america just left everything as it is, insted of trying to rule the world single handidly, then maybe no tradigies would ever happen...
the relivance to gaming none, but i though it should be said...
Shorty
I think America going to war against Osama is wrong and right, but more wrong. Retalliation never got the world anywhere, it might make one person feel more secure but can destroy many normal lives, physically and mentally.
I feel sorrow for the 3000 that died on that day, but realistically, if it happened to say Chile or Peru, no one would really care, no one would mark the day or moment, just because its America everyone should have to pay tribute, which i think is silly.
I already know that most of europe has a hatred for America, because they realised that America was doing bad before september 11 ever happend.
America took upon itself the duty to police the world, but no one elected America to do this, since when does one country take control of the world, thats wrong in itself, even if they are serving justice, no one takes on that right.
I think America looks blindly upon Osmamas beliefs and others, although his attitude isnt exactly great, but i think everyone takes things way too seriously, why not just leave the normal people and civilians out of this.
Words can cure anything, War can only cure one mans hatred and desire for pain onto others for what was put upon him.
If america just left everything as it is, insted of trying to rule the world single handidly, then maybe no tradigies would ever happen...
the relivance to gaming none, but i though it should be said...
Shorty
Page:
No worries ;)
Your right, it does make sense, sorry _-_;
Fina - you didn't read Mr Happy's post properly there - he was talking about the USA's hypocrisy at the time. Read it in context and it makes sense.
Mr. Happy wrote:
America never backs
> terrorists, they back freedom fighters.
Excuse me? The Americans were funding the IRA, who if you can't remember bombed London a fair biy a few years ago. And when we told them, they didn't even apologize.
America never backs
> terrorists, they back freedom fighters.
Excuse me? The Americans were funding the IRA, who if you can't remember bombed London a fair biy a few years ago. And when we told them, they didn't even apologize.
Apparently Saddam can't nuke the U.K. It's too far away.
Bush's main excuse for attacking Iraq are the UN sanctions that were broken by the Iraqis. i have another couple of points for Mr. George W(anker) Bush to think over:
1. What about UN sanctions on the Turkish in Crete? They were meant to get out in the early 90s. They're still there.
2. What about UN sanctions on the Israelis in Palestine? These are there to get the Israelis out of Palestinian land in 1950. They're still there.
3. Loads of others.
1. What about UN sanctions on the Turkish in Crete? They were meant to get out in the early 90s. They're still there.
2. What about UN sanctions on the Israelis in Palestine? These are there to get the Israelis out of Palestinian land in 1950. They're still there.
3. Loads of others.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> The thing so many people ignore is the consequences for the USA if
> they did not retaliate.
>
> They'd be looked upon as soft, and become the target for more
> terrorist abuse.
That's not entirely true is it?
Look at Israel. When was it most under attack from suicide bombers, while making incursions into the West bank and seeking out terrorists, or while withdrawn?
It's not that simplistic, but the fact remains that if America handles this war badly, the reprocussions will be far worse than any victory gained. Firstly if America attacks without the (tacit) approval of its Arabic allies, it endangers further fragmenting the region, and ostracising itself from its key allies. If Saudi Arabia takes a more hardline stance, then the terrorists will be able to move there and plan attacks.
America's other problem is one of its hypocrisy. While I am all for the removal of tyrannical despots with trigger happy fingers, America's definition of a tryannical despot is evidently different to mine. I am against all despots. America, however, defines a tyrannical despot as a despot we don't like. Similarly, America never backs terrorists, they back freedom fighters. America also believes in international law by convenience; if Europe buys bananas from its colonial friends then America sets into motion WTO threats and trade embargoes, leading to a European climbdown. But if America does exactly the same thing with steel, and Europe kicks up a fuss then it ignores the same WTO threats it had previously invoked. It ignores Kyoto. It scuppers the setting up of an international court (funny that for a country guilty of some 400 incidents of unprovoked aggression in the past 40 years).
I do think that Saddam Hussein needs to be dealt with. But all I am saying is that America needs to do it in the proper way, and with international backing. Otherwise it will make things far worse.
> The thing so many people ignore is the consequences for the USA if
> they did not retaliate.
>
> They'd be looked upon as soft, and become the target for more
> terrorist abuse.
That's not entirely true is it?
Look at Israel. When was it most under attack from suicide bombers, while making incursions into the West bank and seeking out terrorists, or while withdrawn?
It's not that simplistic, but the fact remains that if America handles this war badly, the reprocussions will be far worse than any victory gained. Firstly if America attacks without the (tacit) approval of its Arabic allies, it endangers further fragmenting the region, and ostracising itself from its key allies. If Saudi Arabia takes a more hardline stance, then the terrorists will be able to move there and plan attacks.
America's other problem is one of its hypocrisy. While I am all for the removal of tyrannical despots with trigger happy fingers, America's definition of a tryannical despot is evidently different to mine. I am against all despots. America, however, defines a tyrannical despot as a despot we don't like. Similarly, America never backs terrorists, they back freedom fighters. America also believes in international law by convenience; if Europe buys bananas from its colonial friends then America sets into motion WTO threats and trade embargoes, leading to a European climbdown. But if America does exactly the same thing with steel, and Europe kicks up a fuss then it ignores the same WTO threats it had previously invoked. It ignores Kyoto. It scuppers the setting up of an international court (funny that for a country guilty of some 400 incidents of unprovoked aggression in the past 40 years).
I do think that Saddam Hussein needs to be dealt with. But all I am saying is that America needs to do it in the proper way, and with international backing. Otherwise it will make things far worse.
Bonus wrote:
> I'll apologise to Flanders, his post does seem to make more sense than
> some of the others who say "I say we hit the Afghan's
> hard!!!".
>
> Sorry, you got caught in my slur on some of the numpties in here.
Apology accepted ;)
> I'll apologise to Flanders, his post does seem to make more sense than
> some of the others who say "I say we hit the Afghan's
> hard!!!".
>
> Sorry, you got caught in my slur on some of the numpties in here.
Apology accepted ;)
The thing so many people ignore is the consequences for the USA if they did not retaliate.
They'd be looked upon as soft, and become the target for more terrorist abuse.
If nothing else, their war on terrorism is saying in quite plain language that anyone can understand "We will not stand by and watch our people be murdered so that you can further your extremist ends".
And can they be blamed for that? Given the opportunity would you not make absolutely sure that the people under your protection were as safe as possible? Would you not strive to see a threat such as terrorist extremism eliminated from the world in which the millions of people depending on you have to live in?
I'm not in any way endorsing or even justifying the actions of the USA. But far too few people look at events from an American perspective.
They'd be looked upon as soft, and become the target for more terrorist abuse.
If nothing else, their war on terrorism is saying in quite plain language that anyone can understand "We will not stand by and watch our people be murdered so that you can further your extremist ends".
And can they be blamed for that? Given the opportunity would you not make absolutely sure that the people under your protection were as safe as possible? Would you not strive to see a threat such as terrorist extremism eliminated from the world in which the millions of people depending on you have to live in?
I'm not in any way endorsing or even justifying the actions of the USA. But far too few people look at events from an American perspective.
~Res~ wrote:
> still disagree. if one country can hit and kill innocent people we
> should do the same
Wrong + Wrong =Right
Up mine.
> still disagree. if one country can hit and kill innocent people we
> should do the same
Wrong + Wrong =Right
Up mine.
Page: