The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
America have an annoying President, and a very big army.
England have an annoying Prime Minister and a very big army.
Iraq have some very dangerous weapons.
They seem even enough for this to escalate to much more.
If it's a war, I have 14 serious illnesses, I'm allergic to Clothing and I'm a very tall 4-year old.
England have an annoying Prime Minister and a very big army.
Iraq have some very dangerous weapons.
They seem even enough for this to escalate to much more.
If it's a war, I have 14 serious illnesses, I'm allergic to Clothing and I'm a very tall 4-year old.
Page:
It's only by conflict that the human race as a whole has gotten this far. It took World War 2 to convince everyone that such things could not happen again, leading to the creation of the 4 Bretton Woods organisations, including the UN. Whatever the faults of organisations like the IMF, UN, WB e.t.c. they've tried to prevent further massive conflict.
A lot of people can't see the point in war against Iraq simply because they assert that there has been 11 years of peace since the Gulf War. There hasn't because peace isn't just the result of not watching tanks bound over the desert on the BBC.
The Government, no doubt most of you are aware, has today revealed that it's planning for the possibility of mass vaccinations against smallpox, whilst key health workers will be vaccinated soon. Intercepted communications in Afghanistan appear to confirm the Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden, and Osama;s egyptian lieutenant are all alive and being financed in Afghanistan by unknown (publically) backers. In addition the same intercepts picked up mention that within 45 days something will happen to "change the landscape in Afghanistan". Obviously there is no way to know if this is true or disception.
It's all getting rather real isn't it ?
~~Belldandy~~
A lot of people can't see the point in war against Iraq simply because they assert that there has been 11 years of peace since the Gulf War. There hasn't because peace isn't just the result of not watching tanks bound over the desert on the BBC.
The Government, no doubt most of you are aware, has today revealed that it's planning for the possibility of mass vaccinations against smallpox, whilst key health workers will be vaccinated soon. Intercepted communications in Afghanistan appear to confirm the Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Laden, and Osama;s egyptian lieutenant are all alive and being financed in Afghanistan by unknown (publically) backers. In addition the same intercepts picked up mention that within 45 days something will happen to "change the landscape in Afghanistan". Obviously there is no way to know if this is true or disception.
It's all getting rather real isn't it ?
~~Belldandy~~
Yeah, but we'd have to be nice all the time. Sometimes it's nice to let anger out.
Lots of happy people though.
What can I say, I'm a dreamer
What can I say, I'm a dreamer
Goatboy wrote:
> Can't we all just get along?
That'd make for an exceedingly boring forum and world....
~~Belldandy~~
> Can't we all just get along?
That'd make for an exceedingly boring forum and world....
~~Belldandy~~
Ok fine.
You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and we're both happy.
And, as a postscript and final thought to this topic:
I like boobs. Saddam likes boobs. You like boobs.
Can't we all just get along?
You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and we're both happy.
And, as a postscript and final thought to this topic:
I like boobs. Saddam likes boobs. You like boobs.
Can't we all just get along?
Goatboy wrote:
> Pinochet flew over here for medical treatment, and he's wanted for
> genocide, corruption and harbouring terrorists as well.
Wanted by who ? Because apart from protestors during his stay I didn't see anyone asking for him... Besides Pinochet rendered valuable help to us during the Falklands war. If a country wanted him they should have been more vocal - plus whilst he was in Chile any half decent team could have extracted him if hes that bad.....but no one did. Strange eh ? I know if we could grab Saddam that easily we would.
> We allow Al Queda spokespeople to live, claim benefit and hold public
> rallies.
Yep, true, but only whilst they remain within our laws. New laws, making it harder to do this were rejected post 9/11 as they'd infringe human rights. If these people do anything other than what they can do - express opinions and so on - then they'll be arrested. Incidentally we've arrested a fair few people to do with Al Queda without trial, because we want to stop them doing the activities you describe, but again this is supposed to be in violation of human rights. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
> We supply Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor with weapons
> that are used on civilian "rebels"
If they're rebels then they are rebels ! If you take up a weapon and fight against the government in these countries then you're a rebel first, civilian second. Want to stay a civilian ? Don't fire a weapon...simple enough isn't it ?
> I'm not debating Hussein as a bad person, I'm merely saying that a lot
> of the reasons being offered up are applicable to the UK as well.
> Not all, but quite a few.
On the surface yes, but when it comes down to motives and intent our reasons are completely different, the more detailed you look the more the differences become.
We supply weapons to other governments - conventional weapons - Saddam could soon do the same with WMDS. We have imprisoned people without trial - for being suspected terrorists - whilst Iraq does the same for those it dislikes for political, moral and racial reasons, and the likelihood a person will return from prison is slim. We assist those who other feel havedone wrongly because at some point that person did our country a big favour. In Pinochets case we offered medical support and not sanctuary as Iraq is doing to terrorists in most cases. Pinochet is vey much a one off too, the only other examples are the Nazi scientists we "imprisoned" after the war. No country is perfect or fault free, but on a scale Iraq is pretty much at the top end of rogue, whilst the USA and UK remain low down.
We may do similar things but our reasons are different.
A world without Saddam in power could only be better, a world without the USA and the UK could only be worse.
~~Belldandy~~
> Pinochet flew over here for medical treatment, and he's wanted for
> genocide, corruption and harbouring terrorists as well.
Wanted by who ? Because apart from protestors during his stay I didn't see anyone asking for him... Besides Pinochet rendered valuable help to us during the Falklands war. If a country wanted him they should have been more vocal - plus whilst he was in Chile any half decent team could have extracted him if hes that bad.....but no one did. Strange eh ? I know if we could grab Saddam that easily we would.
> We allow Al Queda spokespeople to live, claim benefit and hold public
> rallies.
Yep, true, but only whilst they remain within our laws. New laws, making it harder to do this were rejected post 9/11 as they'd infringe human rights. If these people do anything other than what they can do - express opinions and so on - then they'll be arrested. Incidentally we've arrested a fair few people to do with Al Queda without trial, because we want to stop them doing the activities you describe, but again this is supposed to be in violation of human rights. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
> We supply Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor with weapons
> that are used on civilian "rebels"
If they're rebels then they are rebels ! If you take up a weapon and fight against the government in these countries then you're a rebel first, civilian second. Want to stay a civilian ? Don't fire a weapon...simple enough isn't it ?
> I'm not debating Hussein as a bad person, I'm merely saying that a lot
> of the reasons being offered up are applicable to the UK as well.
> Not all, but quite a few.
On the surface yes, but when it comes down to motives and intent our reasons are completely different, the more detailed you look the more the differences become.
We supply weapons to other governments - conventional weapons - Saddam could soon do the same with WMDS. We have imprisoned people without trial - for being suspected terrorists - whilst Iraq does the same for those it dislikes for political, moral and racial reasons, and the likelihood a person will return from prison is slim. We assist those who other feel havedone wrongly because at some point that person did our country a big favour. In Pinochets case we offered medical support and not sanctuary as Iraq is doing to terrorists in most cases. Pinochet is vey much a one off too, the only other examples are the Nazi scientists we "imprisoned" after the war. No country is perfect or fault free, but on a scale Iraq is pretty much at the top end of rogue, whilst the USA and UK remain low down.
We may do similar things but our reasons are different.
A world without Saddam in power could only be better, a world without the USA and the UK could only be worse.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
These include
> one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in
> Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for
> chemical and biological attacks.
Pinochet flew over here for medical treatment, and he's wanted for genocide, corruption and harbouring terrorists as well.
We allow Al Queda spokespeople to live, claim benefit and hold public rallies.
We supply Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor with weapons that are used on civilian "rebels"
I'm not debating Hussein as a bad person, I'm merely saying that a lot of the reasons being offered up are applicable to the UK as well.
Not all, but quite a few.
It's all to do with the angle you look from.
These include
> one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in
> Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for
> chemical and biological attacks.
Pinochet flew over here for medical treatment, and he's wanted for genocide, corruption and harbouring terrorists as well.
We allow Al Queda spokespeople to live, claim benefit and hold public rallies.
We supply Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor with weapons that are used on civilian "rebels"
I'm not debating Hussein as a bad person, I'm merely saying that a lot of the reasons being offered up are applicable to the UK as well.
Not all, but quite a few.
It's all to do with the angle you look from.
Politicians have ignored this before because of the public. WE havent attacked before because of the whining idiot peace brigade that worships Iraq and Saddam like it's some kind of new Babylon.
Iraq has proven links to terrorists, (Quoted from last nights Address)
"Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.
We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses. And we know that after September the 11th Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
Pre emptive strike are about hitting before you are hit. US motives are not profit based, take a look at the stock market and try prove that theory, those like Russia, France and China are the ones who have $ signs in their eyes - they trade with Iraq, France has a long history of dealing with Arab nations by itself for oil and other resources, more so than the USA and UK. If either of our two nations wanted oil there are easier ways to do this without war.
War in Iraq has now become a matter of time. Public apathy for 11 years has partly determined that, bear it in mind. The Governments of the USA and UK will not stand by and let history repeat itself, no matter what other nations say.
~~Belldandy~~
Iraq has proven links to terrorists, (Quoted from last nights Address)
"Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Some Al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior Al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.
We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses. And we know that after September the 11th Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
Pre emptive strike are about hitting before you are hit. US motives are not profit based, take a look at the stock market and try prove that theory, those like Russia, France and China are the ones who have $ signs in their eyes - they trade with Iraq, France has a long history of dealing with Arab nations by itself for oil and other resources, more so than the USA and UK. If either of our two nations wanted oil there are easier ways to do this without war.
War in Iraq has now become a matter of time. Public apathy for 11 years has partly determined that, bear it in mind. The Governments of the USA and UK will not stand by and let history repeat itself, no matter what other nations say.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> You say he'll strike
> back yes ? Then you obviously think he'll use his weapons against us.
> Which is the whole point of a pre emptive strike !!
I think that he would use his weapons against us, but ONLY if we initiate combat, because apart from that, he has no motives for attack. Whereas George Bush knows that Iraq has oil reserves, and placing an American friendly government in Iraq could generate a reasonable profit for the US.
> You say he'll strike
> back yes ? Then you obviously think he'll use his weapons against us.
> Which is the whole point of a pre emptive strike !!
I think that he would use his weapons against us, but ONLY if we initiate combat, because apart from that, he has no motives for attack. Whereas George Bush knows that Iraq has oil reserves, and placing an American friendly government in Iraq could generate a reasonable profit for the US.
Belldandy wrote:
> Lets see, Saddam has;
>
> 1) Publicly stated that Israel and the jewish race should be
> destroyed.
> 2) Tried to acquire nuclear material.
> 3) Developed other WMDS, and then "lost" them, like you lose
> that much anthrax....
> 4) Previously attacked his own people, Iran, Kuwait, Israel.
> 5) Failed to release 600 Gulf War prisoners, they have disappeared
> without trace.
> 6) Broken UN resolutions for 11 years.
> 7) Offered cash payments for the dead bodies of US and UK servicemen
> patrolling the No Fly zone.
> 8) Sheltered terrorists of various groups.
> 9) Paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
> 10) Attempted to construct a "super gun" in secret.
> 11) Had political opponents murdered, women raped and murdered,
> children of his enemies tortured, and even members of his own family
> killed.
I think it's this that worries a lot of people... fact is none of this stuff is new, the only reason we're attacking now is due to the change in policy after Sept 11th. Quite frankly, our politicians didn't see fit to go to war over these issues previously, now they decide we must attack, and give all these as reasons as to why we should attack, so why haven't we attacked before?
Why can't the politicians just admit the only reason we're attacking (well, going to...) now is because now the West is scared that other people are going to use violence against it.
> Lets see, Saddam has;
>
> 1) Publicly stated that Israel and the jewish race should be
> destroyed.
> 2) Tried to acquire nuclear material.
> 3) Developed other WMDS, and then "lost" them, like you lose
> that much anthrax....
> 4) Previously attacked his own people, Iran, Kuwait, Israel.
> 5) Failed to release 600 Gulf War prisoners, they have disappeared
> without trace.
> 6) Broken UN resolutions for 11 years.
> 7) Offered cash payments for the dead bodies of US and UK servicemen
> patrolling the No Fly zone.
> 8) Sheltered terrorists of various groups.
> 9) Paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
> 10) Attempted to construct a "super gun" in secret.
> 11) Had political opponents murdered, women raped and murdered,
> children of his enemies tortured, and even members of his own family
> killed.
I think it's this that worries a lot of people... fact is none of this stuff is new, the only reason we're attacking now is due to the change in policy after Sept 11th. Quite frankly, our politicians didn't see fit to go to war over these issues previously, now they decide we must attack, and give all these as reasons as to why we should attack, so why haven't we attacked before?
Why can't the politicians just admit the only reason we're attacking (well, going to...) now is because now the West is scared that other people are going to use violence against it.
Page: