The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I agree with you goaty.
We didn't get him the first time and although we are more powerfull the second time we still probabaly wont beat him this time
We didn't get him the first time and although we are more powerfull the second time we still probabaly wont beat him this time
I don't disagree with the basis of this whole situation.
Hussein is a dangerous and unpredictable character.
I just dont see what another substained war will achieve, when, in the 11 years since the last one where we told these exact same reasons (weapons of mass destruction, hitler, murdering his own people) he has done nothing to threaten world peace.
Circumstances seem no different than '91.
It achieved nothing during The Gulf.
He wasn't removed, he still has the threat of nuclear armament, he still rules his regime with fear and murder.
So what will another round achieve?
I dont know the answers, I really dont.
I'm merely voicing my concerns over what might prove to be another futile and pointless conflict.
It's a lose/lose situation.
Hussein is a dangerous and unpredictable character.
I just dont see what another substained war will achieve, when, in the 11 years since the last one where we told these exact same reasons (weapons of mass destruction, hitler, murdering his own people) he has done nothing to threaten world peace.
Circumstances seem no different than '91.
It achieved nothing during The Gulf.
He wasn't removed, he still has the threat of nuclear armament, he still rules his regime with fear and murder.
So what will another round achieve?
I dont know the answers, I really dont.
I'm merely voicing my concerns over what might prove to be another futile and pointless conflict.
It's a lose/lose situation.
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
Jeez.. Catch-22 time:
"Let someone else get killed!"
"Suppose everyone on our side felt that way?"
"Well then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"
-----------
"Englishmen are dying for England, American's are dying for America, Germans are dying for Germany, Russians are dying for Russia. There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can all be worth dying for?"
-----------
"Anything worth living for," said Nately, "is worth dying for."
"And anything worth dying for," answered the old man, "is certainly worth living for."
> They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
Jeez.. Catch-22 time:
"Let someone else get killed!"
"Suppose everyone on our side felt that way?"
"Well then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"
-----------
"Englishmen are dying for England, American's are dying for America, Germans are dying for Germany, Russians are dying for Russia. There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can all be worth dying for?"
-----------
"Anything worth living for," said Nately, "is worth dying for."
"And anything worth dying for," answered the old man, "is certainly worth living for."
A flippant comment, and in retrospect, stupid and made out of anger. So I apologise for the wording.
My meaning was that, should there be a war, then refusing to fight may not be an option. An enemy soldier isn't likely to care whether you're shouting 'freeze, scumbag' or 'don't shoot, I have nothing against you'. Saddam and his army don't care if you're military or civilian - they'd still shoot you on sight anyway. We are all his sworn enemies, whether we agree with Bush/Blair or not.
Similarly, if Saddam does acheive nuclear capability or even just a long-range delivery system for his chemical weapons... as someone else has mentioned before, they don't discriminate between those who backed the war and those who didn't.
Personally, given a choice of them or us, I choose them - for no other reason than while my life may suck a big one, I ain't ready to give it up just yet.
However, if we DID send the anti-war campaigners in first, maybe the feelings of love would avert a war?
My meaning was that, should there be a war, then refusing to fight may not be an option. An enemy soldier isn't likely to care whether you're shouting 'freeze, scumbag' or 'don't shoot, I have nothing against you'. Saddam and his army don't care if you're military or civilian - they'd still shoot you on sight anyway. We are all his sworn enemies, whether we agree with Bush/Blair or not.
Similarly, if Saddam does acheive nuclear capability or even just a long-range delivery system for his chemical weapons... as someone else has mentioned before, they don't discriminate between those who backed the war and those who didn't.
Personally, given a choice of them or us, I choose them - for no other reason than while my life may suck a big one, I ain't ready to give it up just yet.
However, if we DID send the anti-war campaigners in first, maybe the feelings of love would avert a war?
Rosalind wrote:
> Like the altruism that wasps show when they sting people and die,
> defending their queen.
I meant bees of course
> Like the altruism that wasps show when they sting people and die,
> defending their queen.
I meant bees of course
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
>
> They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
Like the altruism that wasps show when they sting people and die, defending their queen.
> Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
>
> They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
Like the altruism that wasps show when they sting people and die, defending their queen.
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
> Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
They are sacrificed for the "greater good"
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> I agree, it was a disgrace. But if we should have done it then, and
> didn't, why is it wrong to do it now?
---
Why didn't we finish him them? Because he complied with UN Security resolutions to an extent?
But we were told he was evil and must be stopped (much like this time), yet the moment he said "Oh alright then", we went home and (unlike the USA) refuse to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome and pay out to those retired on disability pension.
So now we're told he's evil and yadda yadda yadda. Why should it be any different this time?
Does anyone actually think we'll remove Hussein? Just as it was said here that Bin Laden would not be brought to justice either.
Why?
It's good business to have an enemy.
Saddam should have been stopped when he came to power, instead of being backed by the UK and USA as an alternative to Muslim rule (can't let the Muslims control the oil).
We put him there knowing exactly what he was like.
Only now he's turned his back on us, we must destroy this "Evil Hitler"?
Seems a tad odd to me.
If anyone actually thinks Hussein will be toppled, you're as naive as I am thinking that I'd ever see peace in my lifetime.
Bin Laden, Mugabe, Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosevic, Stalin.
These are all evil men, and these are all evil men that were never "removed" by The West.
(Milosevic was handed over to The Hague, we didn't "get him")
You gotta have an enemy, because without an enemy you wont have need for armies.
> I agree, it was a disgrace. But if we should have done it then, and
> didn't, why is it wrong to do it now?
---
Why didn't we finish him them? Because he complied with UN Security resolutions to an extent?
But we were told he was evil and must be stopped (much like this time), yet the moment he said "Oh alright then", we went home and (unlike the USA) refuse to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome and pay out to those retired on disability pension.
So now we're told he's evil and yadda yadda yadda. Why should it be any different this time?
Does anyone actually think we'll remove Hussein? Just as it was said here that Bin Laden would not be brought to justice either.
Why?
It's good business to have an enemy.
Saddam should have been stopped when he came to power, instead of being backed by the UK and USA as an alternative to Muslim rule (can't let the Muslims control the oil).
We put him there knowing exactly what he was like.
Only now he's turned his back on us, we must destroy this "Evil Hitler"?
Seems a tad odd to me.
If anyone actually thinks Hussein will be toppled, you're as naive as I am thinking that I'd ever see peace in my lifetime.
Bin Laden, Mugabe, Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosevic, Stalin.
These are all evil men, and these are all evil men that were never "removed" by The West.
(Milosevic was handed over to The Hague, we didn't "get him")
You gotta have an enemy, because without an enemy you wont have need for armies.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Flanders wrote:
> I agree with what Mr Happy has said - Iraq have said the weapons
> inspectors can go in so get them in and let them do their job.
>
> The question there is, has it been agreed that they can also inspect
> Saddam's palaces? Last I heard, he'd said no, and that's where they
> think weapons will be hidden.
Maybe - but until the inspectors get in there we will not know.
Also - he's hardly likely to try and use anything whilst the country is full of UN inspectors and also it will more than likely prevent / postpone and future plans Saddam may have whilst the inspectors are there.
Any delays like this can only be good.
> Flanders wrote:
> I agree with what Mr Happy has said - Iraq have said the weapons
> inspectors can go in so get them in and let them do their job.
>
> The question there is, has it been agreed that they can also inspect
> Saddam's palaces? Last I heard, he'd said no, and that's where they
> think weapons will be hidden.
Maybe - but until the inspectors get in there we will not know.
Also - he's hardly likely to try and use anything whilst the country is full of UN inspectors and also it will more than likely prevent / postpone and future plans Saddam may have whilst the inspectors are there.
Any delays like this can only be good.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Now to me, those are all genuine, prefectly reasonable concerns. But
> no doubt in the opinions of some people, I may as well have just
> tattooed a Swastika on my forehead.
--
We've gone over these time and time again, and like I say, whilst I disagree with you, you are more than entitled to say what you think.
My point, and one you have not addressed still, is your comment about "rounding up and sending them in first as a distraction" in regards to those that do not want to see another war.
That is what I am having a problem with, because you are saying that anyone that disagrees with your "We must go to war" should be disposed of.
That is what I fail to understand, that is the point I'm trying to make clear here.
I respect you and your opinions, whether I agree or not.
What I do not agree with and take issue with is your suggestion of disposing of those that say "Hang on a minute, I don't think that's right".
> Now to me, those are all genuine, prefectly reasonable concerns. But
> no doubt in the opinions of some people, I may as well have just
> tattooed a Swastika on my forehead.
--
We've gone over these time and time again, and like I say, whilst I disagree with you, you are more than entitled to say what you think.
My point, and one you have not addressed still, is your comment about "rounding up and sending them in first as a distraction" in regards to those that do not want to see another war.
That is what I am having a problem with, because you are saying that anyone that disagrees with your "We must go to war" should be disposed of.
That is what I fail to understand, that is the point I'm trying to make clear here.
I respect you and your opinions, whether I agree or not.
What I do not agree with and take issue with is your suggestion of disposing of those that say "Hang on a minute, I don't think that's right".
Page: