GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"War On Iraq. (Poll)"

The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.

Fri 13/09/02 at 13:09
Regular
Posts: 787
I think that war on Iraq is both right and wrong at the same time.
it's right because Saddam is a threat and must be dealt with
and it's wrong because America have no right to decide upon the fate of nearly the whole world.


Some of you will feel differently about this so i've set up an opinion poll.
just go here http://www.geocities.com/cheatser2/Sept11th_Tribute.html
then click on the link below the poem and go to the appropriate link on the next site!
Wed 18/09/02 at 16:46
Regular
"Stay Frosty"
Posts: 742
Belldandy wrote:

>How ? France was totally unprepared despite obtaining a map from their >German embassy showing arrows spreading from Germany into all Europe, >and the fact that thousands of men/tanks/planes were massing for >Blitzkrieg. France was over run and surrenedered and faced 5 years of >occupation after that. France's rapid defeat meant the UK had to rely on >the pilots of the RAF to hold Germany until America entered the war >later on, supplying hte men and material needed to retake Europe.

>The League couldn't have stopped Germany, but individual nations could >have listened to intelligence telling of the mass killings of jews, >develpment of weapons and new military equipment, and the UK and France >could have attacked Germany earlier in greater numbers if the threat had >been taken seriously. But, the peacemakers said diplomacy. Diplomacy it >was...look where it ended.


Ain't hind sight a great thing. In 1933, Hitler came in. By 1936, he had an armed forces like no other. The French and British didn't go to war in 36 'cus they knew they'd lose. Thats why we both re-armed right from the 1936 mark. Not because they took a diplomatic approach. You shouldn't dig at the UK and France's actions if you don't know the full facts. At least the US are pulling their finger out on the fight against tyrany. Not like WW1 and 2!!!
Wed 18/09/02 at 16:10
Regular
"Sanity is for loser"
Posts: 1,647
Gridloch wrote:
> nuke the ba****ds

What an intelligent response :|

We must weigh up the facts:

Saddam displays a constant hatred to Western Society, and makes it clear that when he has the ability, he will strike against it.

He kicks out UN weapon inspectors. This was 1999. Since then, the UN has done nothing to force Saddam's regime to alow them back.

During WW2, the atomic bombs dropped on Hagasaki and Hiroshima were deceloped in under 2 years, with very little former knowledge (they were the first ever)

So, in the 4 years UN inspectors have been absent, with much more free knowledge about nuclear weapons, are to suspect that Saddam is not at least TRYING to get nuclear capabiliies?

It is clear from documents and photographic evidence released to the public that Saddam has chemical and biological capabilities.

IF allowed to develop nukes, Saddam will, beyond reasonable doubt, use them.

So, USA prepares for war, UK joining them in their agressive stance. Before actually suggesting war, the USA was intent on getting inspectors back. It was only after the UN failed to act, and it became clear that Saddam wouldn't let them back, that war was suggested.

Now, the UN finally agreed to back strikes agaist Saddam and his dictatorship. Yet, before plans are drawn up and action taken, Sadamm says he will let inspectors back.

From these simple words, the UN backs down and thinks it's won. Its now the USA and the UK alone in a war stance again.

Saddam has done this before. Say, one thing, never do it. What makes the UN think he's actually going to let them back in? What if he's buying the final few months to complete his project?

Can we really take the risk? I say no, eliminate him and his government ASAP, before we are all sorry.
Wed 18/09/02 at 15:55
Regular
"Gamertag Star Fury"
Posts: 2,710
Skarra wrote:
> Another thing, the League of Nations coundn.t have stopped Hitler even
> if they tried. Plus, in some ways it was better that the UK and France
> left it until 1939 to go to war!

How ? France was totally unprepared despite obtaining a map from their German embassy showing arrows spreading from Germany into all Europe, and the fact that thousands of men/tanks/planes were massing for Blitzkrieg. France was over run and surrenedered and faced 5 years of occupation after that. France's rapid defeat meant the UK had to rely on the pilots of the RAF to hold Germany until America entered the war later on, supplying hte men and material needed to retake Europe.

The League couldn't have stopped Germany, but individual nations could have listened to intelligence telling of the mass killings of jews, develpment of weapons and new military equipment, and the UK and France could have attacked Germany earlier in greater numbers if the threat had been taken seriously. But, the peacemakers said diplomacy. Diplomacy it was...look where it ended.

~~Belldandy~~
Wed 18/09/02 at 15:11
"I hate that!!!"
Posts: 4,115
Semajal wrote:
> *saddam <-- i think thats correct spellin.

My appologies
Sun 15/09/02 at 15:29
Regular
"INSERT WITTY COMMEN"
Posts: 170
I think we should get rid of bin laden once and for all, before he sets up another plain scare. All the americans were scared a few days ago, coz they thought the al quidia (soz if i spelt it wrong) was gonna do something on the anniversary of september 11th.

Also, why is this in the gaming section, not that its not important mind you.
Sun 15/09/02 at 13:06
Regular
"Stay Frosty"
Posts: 742
Bush doesn't need the US Senate to give the go ahead. But if congres doesn't say "go in", Bush probably won't go in.

Another thing, the League of Nations coundn.t have stopped Hitler even if they tried. Plus, in some ways it was better that the UK and France left it until 1939 to go to war!

But i still think Sadman Husseiney should go, but only on the UN's say so!
Sun 15/09/02 at 06:38
Regular
"sweats salad dressi"
Posts: 4,599
Jimmy Duck wrote:
> America might not even go to war. Because congress need to vote so if
> they aren't convinced by bush they can vote against it.



Jimmy that is very right, but the problem is that george didnt know this policy and was about to make a big a** mistake and we figured that he doesnt realy know much about goverment does he.


And one more thing. Jimmy, why in gods name are you on so late.

"gasps"
Sun 15/09/02 at 05:29
Regular
"I confused?"
Posts: 2,440
America might not even go to war. Because congress need to vote so if they aren't convinced by bush they can vote against it.

Also Blair in my opinion is wrong. We live in a democratic country and as 77%(this might have changed) of us don't want war then he shouldn't be saying that we will fight.
Sat 14/09/02 at 13:22
Regular
"Jags is teh l33t"
Posts: 4,074
*saddam <-- i think thats correct spellin.
Sat 14/09/02 at 13:17
Regular
"Jags is teh l33t"
Posts: 4,074
saddamn has been in breach of about 22 UN regulation things since the gulf war. IE you can't make ruels and not enforce them. War on iraq would not affect us very much.

Freeola & GetDotted are rated

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Unrivalled services
Freeola has to be one of, if not the best, ISP around as the services they offer seem unrivalled.
LOVE it....
You have made it so easy to build & host a website!!!
Gemma

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Hide Feedback Tab

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.