The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
> 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.
Mr. Happy wrote:
> I doubt that he would use them unless, as in the gulf, Baghdad and his
> regime were threatened. Ergo it makes little sense to provoke him.
Okay, so we leave him alone and he develops nukes. Then he decides to try invading Kuwait again, or getting rid of the remaining UN troops in Kuwait by popping a mini-nuke in their. Or invades another neighbor.
What does the rest of the world do then? Do we go after him knowing he has nukes that can (possibly) reach Europe? Or do we again say "sorry, nothing we can do" and have it added to the list of 'overlooked' area like those that Goatboy mentions, making the west "even worse"?
> The fact remains that when we could have overthrown him, we didn't,
> and what's more, we left the rebels in the lurch, having promised to
> support them, and they were wiped out by Saddam.
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?
> I doubt that he would use them unless, as in the gulf, Baghdad and his
> regime were threatened. Ergo it makes little sense to provoke him.
Okay, so we leave him alone and he develops nukes. Then he decides to try invading Kuwait again, or getting rid of the remaining UN troops in Kuwait by popping a mini-nuke in their. Or invades another neighbor.
What does the rest of the world do then? Do we go after him knowing he has nukes that can (possibly) reach Europe? Or do we again say "sorry, nothing we can do" and have it added to the list of 'overlooked' area like those that Goatboy mentions, making the west "even worse"?
> The fact remains that when we could have overthrown him, we didn't,
> and what's more, we left the rebels in the lurch, having promised to
> support them, and they were wiped out by Saddam.
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?
Goatboy wrote:
> It's an attitude I've seen from you on several occasions to do with
> immigration, national pride and a couple of other points.
Let's talk about being offensive then.
Regarding immigration, I've said time and time again that I have no problem with any immigrants who come here to work. What *I* find offensive is those that come here for free homes and handouts, and are given them, while people who've lived and worked here all their lives struggle through on worthless pensions.
I find it offensive that *certain* immigrants (by no means all) can cause £40m damage by burning down a centre design to hold them in relative luxury while their claims are examined, and still expect - or be allowed - to stay.
I find it offensive that being proud to be English immediately labels you as a Neo-Nazi. No-one accuses anyone else of it. In most countries, it's considered a good thing to be proud of where you come from. But not in England, no. Wave a flag and you've obviously got a shrine to Hitler back at home.
I find it offensive that supporters of Bin Laden and al Quaeda are allowed to march freely through London without any action being taken, for fear of offending Britain's Muslims. Strange, when most of them are decent people who are as sickened by al Quaeda as the rest of us.
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.
> It's an attitude I've seen from you on several occasions to do with
> immigration, national pride and a couple of other points.
Let's talk about being offensive then.
Regarding immigration, I've said time and time again that I have no problem with any immigrants who come here to work. What *I* find offensive is those that come here for free homes and handouts, and are given them, while people who've lived and worked here all their lives struggle through on worthless pensions.
I find it offensive that *certain* immigrants (by no means all) can cause £40m damage by burning down a centre design to hold them in relative luxury while their claims are examined, and still expect - or be allowed - to stay.
I find it offensive that being proud to be English immediately labels you as a Neo-Nazi. No-one accuses anyone else of it. In most countries, it's considered a good thing to be proud of where you come from. But not in England, no. Wave a flag and you've obviously got a shrine to Hitler back at home.
I find it offensive that supporters of Bin Laden and al Quaeda are allowed to march freely through London without any action being taken, for fear of offending Britain's Muslims. Strange, when most of them are decent people who are as sickened by al Quaeda as the rest of us.
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.
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> As for the topic argument - war is good for mankind.
Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
> As for the topic argument - war is good for mankind.
Except for the millions of people who die from it, of course.
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.
If the US intelligence services ideas about what is where is correct they will soon be able to find out and things will have to be sorted from thereon. Saddam knows that the US are more than happy to go in guns blazing and I'm sure he will not block the inspectors efforts - he will try to hide things no doubt but blocking the inspectors would not be his best move.
If the US intelligence services ideas about what is where is correct they will soon be able to find out and things will have to be sorted from thereon. Saddam knows that the US are more than happy to go in guns blazing and I'm sure he will not block the inspectors efforts - he will try to hide things no doubt but blocking the inspectors would not be his best move.
As for the topic argument - war is good for mankind.
It was your comment about rounding up those that disagree and sending them in first I object to.
It's simplistic, offensive and reeks of right-wing "Agree or you will be dealt with"
It's an attitude I've seen from you on several occasions to do with immigration, national pride and a couple of other points.
And whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I would appreciate it if perhaps you didn't assume that anybody that differed from your opinion "should be rounded up and sent in first"
And Mr Happy raised a few points as well.
It's simplistic, offensive and reeks of right-wing "Agree or you will be dealt with"
It's an attitude I've seen from you on several occasions to do with immigration, national pride and a couple of other points.
And whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I would appreciate it if perhaps you didn't assume that anybody that differed from your opinion "should be rounded up and sent in first"
And Mr Happy raised a few points as well.
Hev2222 wrote:
> you neva answered the question
I was under no obligation to do so. But yes, we do have good times.
> you neva answered the question
I was under no obligation to do so. But yes, we do have good times.
if if if
That's the problem.
I doubt that he would use them unless, as in the gulf, Baghdad and his regime were threatened. Ergo it makes little sense to provoke him.
The fact remains that when we could have overthrown him, we didn't, and what's more, we left the rebels in the lurch, having promised to support them, and they were wiped out by Saddam.
America only ever thinks short term. That's why a war is a bad idea. Saddam needs to be brought into the international community, so weapons inspectors can go in and finish their job. If America does go to war it risks destabilising the whole region, will hurt all of us more that a policy of containment.
That's the problem.
I doubt that he would use them unless, as in the gulf, Baghdad and his regime were threatened. Ergo it makes little sense to provoke him.
The fact remains that when we could have overthrown him, we didn't, and what's more, we left the rebels in the lurch, having promised to support them, and they were wiped out by Saddam.
America only ever thinks short term. That's why a war is a bad idea. Saddam needs to be brought into the international community, so weapons inspectors can go in and finish their job. If America does go to war it risks destabilising the whole region, will hurt all of us more that a policy of containment.
Ingenium Bartender wrote:
> You think we're like this all the time?
you neva answered the question
> You think we're like this all the time?
you neva answered the question
Page: