The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
For the people who vehemently support such an attack on Iraq, for reasons of potential harm to the West (and let's face it, that could be a varying degree of danger, because despite the media and the dossier we (as in, me and you) are pretty much in the dark over the extent to which Iraq possesses harmful weapons), we must look at the long term. This has been touched on by some people so far, but it the long term situation really has been overlooked, by us and the media.
Say America successfully disarms Iraq and deposes Hussein, then what? Will they build towards democracy? I don't think that's even plausible, considering the different groups involved. What happens to the region? By successfully removing one threat, there is a possibility of creating more resentment in the region. Maybe a successful puppet government will be installed, where America can try and stabilise the country. But then what are we left with? Is every country that poses a threat going to be controlled by America. The route America is pursuing is nothing short of neo-colonialism.
I'm not saying Saddam isn't a threat, and he shouldn't be removed, because he should on both counts. What I am saying is, what next?
Say America successfully disarms Iraq and deposes Hussein, then what? Will they build towards democracy? I don't think that's even plausible, considering the different groups involved. What happens to the region? By successfully removing one threat, there is a possibility of creating more resentment in the region. Maybe a successful puppet government will be installed, where America can try and stabilise the country. But then what are we left with? Is every country that poses a threat going to be controlled by America. The route America is pursuing is nothing short of neo-colonialism.
I'm not saying Saddam isn't a threat, and he shouldn't be removed, because he should on both counts. What I am saying is, what next?
Really, if the Iraqis do have these "Weapons of mass destruction" then they probably win overall. Well, from an American or British point of view anyway.
If they're not planning on doing anything with them, and we attack them, then they'll attack back, and probably in a very strong and destructive way.
If we don't attack them and they are planning to do something, then we're just going to end up getting hit first, which will be the start of a war, and the start of many innocent deaths.
If they are planning on attacking us, and we attak them first, then it'll just boost the chance of them attacking back, and quicker.
So really, we lose whatever happens, and many innocent lives could be lost. Lets just hope Iraq doesn't decide to attack anyone, or the world will be in heaps of trouble.
War is evil.
If they're not planning on doing anything with them, and we attack them, then they'll attack back, and probably in a very strong and destructive way.
If we don't attack them and they are planning to do something, then we're just going to end up getting hit first, which will be the start of a war, and the start of many innocent deaths.
If they are planning on attacking us, and we attak them first, then it'll just boost the chance of them attacking back, and quicker.
So really, we lose whatever happens, and many innocent lives could be lost. Lets just hope Iraq doesn't decide to attack anyone, or the world will be in heaps of trouble.
War is evil.
I think that Bush must have reasons for picking on Iraqis. In a country with very mixed races, Bush wouldn't get elected if he was mere racist.
It's not just a question of ousting Sadda, Because he has WMDS it's the fact that Bush wants to finish a job his father never finished.
Why doesn't he pick on other countries with WMDS?
Because like I said he's hell bent on finishing the job.
After this he'll probabaly ignore the other countries with WMDS
Why doesn't he pick on other countries with WMDS?
Because like I said he's hell bent on finishing the job.
After this he'll probabaly ignore the other countries with WMDS
Woah, this got a lot of replies.
Anyway, Iraq could release these warheads and do serious damage, which, in it's turn, would involve more countries on both sides. It's not impossible.
Anyway, Iraq could release these warheads and do serious damage, which, in it's turn, would involve more countries on both sides. It's not impossible.
Frankly, there's more chance of me winning the lottery than this being the run up to World War 3.
The very fact the UK and USA have such powerful armies is to deter war. It says "hurt us and we'll annhilate you". It's only the fact that both countries are democracies that stops them from being like Iraq, and the fact that war is bad for business, peace is good for business !
Iraq is trying to avert war, because it knows it cannot win any war. Iraq's trump card remains its WMDs but, whatever is said about Saddam, he knows that if he uses them then the allies of America and Britain will retaliate with massive force. If he hit's Israel then the Israeli's will nuke him, no diplomacy, just an F16 and a fighter escort straight through AA defences and BANG, no more Baghdad.
Rest assured everyone, that if it comes to war we'll win, why else is Iraq so desperate to avoid war with its constant stalling ? Exactly.
~~Belldandy~~
The very fact the UK and USA have such powerful armies is to deter war. It says "hurt us and we'll annhilate you". It's only the fact that both countries are democracies that stops them from being like Iraq, and the fact that war is bad for business, peace is good for business !
Iraq is trying to avert war, because it knows it cannot win any war. Iraq's trump card remains its WMDs but, whatever is said about Saddam, he knows that if he uses them then the allies of America and Britain will retaliate with massive force. If he hit's Israel then the Israeli's will nuke him, no diplomacy, just an F16 and a fighter escort straight through AA defences and BANG, no more Baghdad.
Rest assured everyone, that if it comes to war we'll win, why else is Iraq so desperate to avoid war with its constant stalling ? Exactly.
~~Belldandy~~
I'm not saying I rock or anything. But to me the fact that (the potential for) war is an essential part of mankinds past, present and future.
We can't survive without war, as we lack the sense to co-operate properly without being required to. War gives a purpose, a NEED to do things together. If you don't HAVE to do things, people generally won't.
We can't survive without war, as we lack the sense to co-operate properly without being required to. War gives a purpose, a NEED to do things together. If you don't HAVE to do things, people generally won't.
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> Not many people like my point of view on these things. Truth hurts
> sometimes.
---
I'm an average white guy in suburban England.
When I speak the truth, the world trembles.
Hardly.
Now come and talk about porno in the other thread.
It's much more fun than this gubbins
> Not many people like my point of view on these things. Truth hurts
> sometimes.
---
I'm an average white guy in suburban England.
When I speak the truth, the world trembles.
Hardly.
Now come and talk about porno in the other thread.
It's much more fun than this gubbins
Goatboy wrote:
> You gotta have an enemy, because without an enemy you wont have need
> for armies.
Armies are essential. But the public doesn't see it that way. If we've got no-one to fight, why fund a fighting force? People ignore the fact that most significant technological advancement comes about by exploring and exploiting military potential for all things.
Without the need to maintain a technologically superior military, the technological revolution we've been enjoying for sometime now will quickly dry up. And at the moment, we can't afford it to. The earth's natural resources grow thin, and we need to either find alternative sources for those resources, or we need to find new ways of producing the same effects via other available resources. At the moment we can barely do either.
I doubt it is the intention of world powers to escalate this conflict for the purposes of mankinds continued survival, but like it or not, such conflicts DO serve that purpose to some extent.
I'm not saying we should start blowing eachother up in order to have a chance of surviving. The threat of war is enough to keep us going forward.
Not many people like my point of view on these things. Truth hurts sometimes.
> You gotta have an enemy, because without an enemy you wont have need
> for armies.
Armies are essential. But the public doesn't see it that way. If we've got no-one to fight, why fund a fighting force? People ignore the fact that most significant technological advancement comes about by exploring and exploiting military potential for all things.
Without the need to maintain a technologically superior military, the technological revolution we've been enjoying for sometime now will quickly dry up. And at the moment, we can't afford it to. The earth's natural resources grow thin, and we need to either find alternative sources for those resources, or we need to find new ways of producing the same effects via other available resources. At the moment we can barely do either.
I doubt it is the intention of world powers to escalate this conflict for the purposes of mankinds continued survival, but like it or not, such conflicts DO serve that purpose to some extent.
I'm not saying we should start blowing eachother up in order to have a chance of surviving. The threat of war is enough to keep us going forward.
Not many people like my point of view on these things. Truth hurts sometimes.
Don't you see, it's not a question of beating anybody?
Even if Hussein is toppled, someone else will take his place, who America will forget about or sell out. America all ready wants to pull its troops out of Kosovo and Afghanistan, leaving frail governments there, which will probably descend into lawlessness.
Even if they set up a firm government, they will be left with a de-stabilised middle-east. The countries bordering Iraq, with the exception of Kuwait, may feel threatened by the American presence, and terrorists will point to Iraq as an example of America's imperialism, using it to recruit more young Muslims to their cause. This war is poorly thought out and will do little to achieve any progress.
It would be far more effective to try and reform Saddam, or at least introduce basic support to Iraqui civilians, while allowing weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. Currently America intends to shoot first and ask questions later.
No beating will go on, if war is declared against Iraq, then everyone will lose regardless of the outcome.
Even if Hussein is toppled, someone else will take his place, who America will forget about or sell out. America all ready wants to pull its troops out of Kosovo and Afghanistan, leaving frail governments there, which will probably descend into lawlessness.
Even if they set up a firm government, they will be left with a de-stabilised middle-east. The countries bordering Iraq, with the exception of Kuwait, may feel threatened by the American presence, and terrorists will point to Iraq as an example of America's imperialism, using it to recruit more young Muslims to their cause. This war is poorly thought out and will do little to achieve any progress.
It would be far more effective to try and reform Saddam, or at least introduce basic support to Iraqui civilians, while allowing weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. Currently America intends to shoot first and ask questions later.
No beating will go on, if war is declared against Iraq, then everyone will lose regardless of the outcome.
Page: