The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Bush doesnt need a reason for war, you cant but wonder whether Hans Blix is paid by Bush to find something about Iraq that he could start his war over. And anyway, Bush could always find some little thing that he could exploit as a reason for war.
Today, it appears that Blix have found that Saddam Hussein has broken some UN law, and now Bush has a good reson for attacking.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ [SPACE] meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/
(delete space)
It is enevitable that the US will attack eventually, just look at the troop movements around the area, and that we will too, for worse in my opinion. America doesn't need our help and we are just making ourselves targets for terrorists by helping the US.
Today, it appears that Blix have found that Saddam Hussein has broken some UN law, and now Bush has a good reson for attacking.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ [SPACE] meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/
(delete space)
It is enevitable that the US will attack eventually, just look at the troop movements around the area, and that we will too, for worse in my opinion. America doesn't need our help and we are just making ourselves targets for terrorists by helping the US.
Page:
i served in vietnam wrote:
> yo-yo dudes, it seems to me that you are all pacifists and are waiting
> to be killed. i am prepared to die for my country fighting that force
> of evil, and if i do so then i know it will be for the right cause.
> you are all thinking politics, instead of thinking of real things such
> as when is saddam going to launch a womd at us. think about it man.
But think about it. Has Saddam done anything on Britain, or America. NO. Is there any reason to go to war at the minute. NO.
And dude, why are you willing to die. You'd think with that name you would understand the anger families feel for their sons dying for a cause they didn't understand or believe in.
> yo-yo dudes, it seems to me that you are all pacifists and are waiting
> to be killed. i am prepared to die for my country fighting that force
> of evil, and if i do so then i know it will be for the right cause.
> you are all thinking politics, instead of thinking of real things such
> as when is saddam going to launch a womd at us. think about it man.
But think about it. Has Saddam done anything on Britain, or America. NO. Is there any reason to go to war at the minute. NO.
And dude, why are you willing to die. You'd think with that name you would understand the anger families feel for their sons dying for a cause they didn't understand or believe in.
i served in vietnam wrote:
> yo-yo dudes, it seems to me that you are all pacifists and are waiting
> to be killed. i am prepared to die for my country fighting that force
> of evil, and if i do so then i know it will be for the right cause.
> you are all thinking politics, instead of thinking of real things such
> as when is saddam going to launch a womd at us. think about it man.
Listen up man, dude. What "evil" are you talking about? Why can't you use correct punctuation and who brainwashed you? You say that if you died protecting your country it would be for the right cause, what about the German soldiers in WWII?
> yo-yo dudes, it seems to me that you are all pacifists and are waiting
> to be killed. i am prepared to die for my country fighting that force
> of evil, and if i do so then i know it will be for the right cause.
> you are all thinking politics, instead of thinking of real things such
> as when is saddam going to launch a womd at us. think about it man.
Listen up man, dude. What "evil" are you talking about? Why can't you use correct punctuation and who brainwashed you? You say that if you died protecting your country it would be for the right cause, what about the German soldiers in WWII?
The main reason Bush wants to go to war is probably because if he doesn't he wont be remembered for anything.
Think about it.
He wont be the Peaceful president who brought peace to the world
He wont be the Smart president who ran his country intelligently
He wants to be remembered as the Warrior President who crushed America's foes and made them the most powerful nation ever.
Think about it.
He wont be the Peaceful president who brought peace to the world
He wont be the Smart president who ran his country intelligently
He wants to be remembered as the Warrior President who crushed America's foes and made them the most powerful nation ever.
hey i am willing to die because i would give my life to save another british/innocent life. I know that it doesnt seem like it to you, but if saddam attacked us then it would be the taking of innocent life that would be the worst thing, so if i took part in a military operation against iraq, and even if it fails and he attacks us, then i know that at least i tried to save lives. to saddam it doesnt matter if you are for or against a war, he will still kill you if he had the chance. just as i would kill him if i had the chance. he kills more innocents everyday than a war would. if i die in combat against evil, then i will die happy.
The Decoy wrote:
> The main reason Bush wants to go to war is probably because if he
> doesn't he wont be remembered for anything.
>
> Think about it.
I believe you are wrong here, for starters he was President on the day of America's worst terrorist attack, and he handled the response to it, that, and his address to the UN, and the American nation after 9/11, are history whatever you think of the man or the country.
September 11 changed everything, it is this generation's war whether we like it or not, but a war unlike any other, and where the response needs to be more than killing the enemy. I think anyone who saw what happened live on tv, or who was actually their watching in real life, will never forget it. The subsequent tv coverage edited out a lot, made it into video bytes, but when it was happening live that afternoon on the UK networks....I can still remember the exact images of the second plane hitting the tower, like it only happened a moment ago.
In the same way, Tony Blair will be remembered, if for nothing else, for being Prime Minister on that day, and for his response.
Think about it, which British Prime Ministers names can you straight away think of ? For me, and I'm not lying, it's Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, John Major. All leaders in a time of conflict.
We tend to mark history be periods of conflict, not peace, and that's why I believe Bush, and Blair will be remembered long after their deaths.
~~Belldandy~~
> The main reason Bush wants to go to war is probably because if he
> doesn't he wont be remembered for anything.
>
> Think about it.
I believe you are wrong here, for starters he was President on the day of America's worst terrorist attack, and he handled the response to it, that, and his address to the UN, and the American nation after 9/11, are history whatever you think of the man or the country.
September 11 changed everything, it is this generation's war whether we like it or not, but a war unlike any other, and where the response needs to be more than killing the enemy. I think anyone who saw what happened live on tv, or who was actually their watching in real life, will never forget it. The subsequent tv coverage edited out a lot, made it into video bytes, but when it was happening live that afternoon on the UK networks....I can still remember the exact images of the second plane hitting the tower, like it only happened a moment ago.
In the same way, Tony Blair will be remembered, if for nothing else, for being Prime Minister on that day, and for his response.
Think about it, which British Prime Ministers names can you straight away think of ? For me, and I'm not lying, it's Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, John Major. All leaders in a time of conflict.
We tend to mark history be periods of conflict, not peace, and that's why I believe Bush, and Blair will be remembered long after their deaths.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> > The document was translated for them - several copies of it were on CD
> ROM and it was done that way for the UN. When you consider that the
> search engine google can translate foreign web pages reasonably
> accurate, licensed high end software can certainly do Arabic.
>
To test this, I ran a typical statement saying that they have no illegal nucular weapons only a few old rockets and non-useable warheads and they don't want war through a translator program to test this out. It came back as:
The illegal nucular all the 1 cords of the weapon it is in us and, several the rocket is old doing war because of fault of a certain useful head not doing, with us it wants.
No wonder they're confused.
> > The document was translated for them - several copies of it were on CD
> ROM and it was done that way for the UN. When you consider that the
> search engine google can translate foreign web pages reasonably
> accurate, licensed high end software can certainly do Arabic.
>
To test this, I ran a typical statement saying that they have no illegal nucular weapons only a few old rockets and non-useable warheads and they don't want war through a translator program to test this out. It came back as:
The illegal nucular all the 1 cords of the weapon it is in us and, several the rocket is old doing war because of fault of a certain useful head not doing, with us it wants.
No wonder they're confused.
Belldandy wrote:
> > September 11 changed everything, it is this generation's war whether
> we like it or not, but a war unlike any other, and where the response
> needs to be more than killing the enemy.
But who is the enemy anyway? Have the US proved Iraq were involved? Does it matter? Strange that they suddenly turned from hunting Taliban to an easier to find foe. No, September 11th was a useful excuse for justifying war. Just because 'they' attacked lots of innocent people doesn't mean 'we' have to do the same.
> > September 11 changed everything, it is this generation's war whether
> we like it or not, but a war unlike any other, and where the response
> needs to be more than killing the enemy.
But who is the enemy anyway? Have the US proved Iraq were involved? Does it matter? Strange that they suddenly turned from hunting Taliban to an easier to find foe. No, September 11th was a useful excuse for justifying war. Just because 'they' attacked lots of innocent people doesn't mean 'we' have to do the same.
Its all in the oil... Greed kills, its true!
pb wrote:
> But who is the enemy anyway? Have the US proved Iraq were involved?
> Does it matter? Strange that they suddenly turned from hunting
> Taliban to an easier to find foe. No, September 11th was a useful
> excuse for justifying war. Just because 'they' attacked lots of
> innocent people doesn't mean 'we' have to do the same.
But all these questions are exactly the whole point of this war. The enemy is not conveniently located in one country or place, it is not an enemy of one nationality or appearance, or even one belief.
Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 as far as I've read - and it seems to me that only the anti-war lobby has suggested anyone has claimed this !
Why aren't we hunting the Taliban ? good question, and we are actually, kind of. Firstly though it really is Al Queda that were the prime target of the campaign as the Taliban were more of a support mechanism for Al Queda. But, back to the idea that "we" have left Al Queda alone. We have not, week upon week there are more arrests of suspected terrorists and known one - in the UK alone we've seen two groups of arrests and the possible foling of an attack. As I said, this is a new kind of war where, unless you're supremely stupid like Al Queda, the enemy doe not bunch up in one place for us to get at them. There are cells of Al Queda all over the world, and some remain in Afganistan and are being hunted by special forces. You have to bear in mind that the perception of what is being done is governed by the UK media - if they don't report it then it never happened. Watching Fox, or the dreaded CNN, gives far more reports of actions in Afghanistan than much of the UK media would have us believe happen. So we are hunting them still, just not in the media spotlight. Same goes for Osama - if anyone does know where he is then we will not hear about it until they have him. On September 12th 2001 a CIA Predator drone, armed with hellfires, relayed images back to the pentagon of Mullah Omar travelling in a convoy. Predator had clear line of sight - but Rumsfeld vetoed the action on legal advice. The idea this war is akin to cowboys and indians is the image those with anti american sentiments want you to believe.
And finally, September 11 was a virtual declaration of war. If you want to be all idealistic then I respect that, but to me no nation on earth is going to take that kind of attack and not respond. Yes, innocents will die in the war on terror, but remember where it all began, that day, and how. This doesn't make alliance inflicted civilian casualties acceptable, but if you've ever known, or talked to, real fighter pilots then one of the things they really impress upon you is that they themselves do not want to hit civilians - its the same as failure to them. Again, anti american supporters would have us believe the american war machine is an implacable terminator like killing machine - it isn;t - those are real people doing jobs.
War will always inflict suffering on people who don't deserve it, ideally there would be no war, but this isn't an ideal world. Either way, I fell the USA and her allies had no choice after 9/11 - the Taliban were requested to hand over Osama Bin Laden and given nearly four weeks to do so. Did Al Queda attempt to legally represent their views to the USA or the UN ? No, they whacked air liners into buildings. Faced with that kind of enemy it is hard to respond peacefully and with a positive effect. Captured people and evidence shows more attacks were being planned in Afghanistan.
~~Belldandy~~
> But who is the enemy anyway? Have the US proved Iraq were involved?
> Does it matter? Strange that they suddenly turned from hunting
> Taliban to an easier to find foe. No, September 11th was a useful
> excuse for justifying war. Just because 'they' attacked lots of
> innocent people doesn't mean 'we' have to do the same.
But all these questions are exactly the whole point of this war. The enemy is not conveniently located in one country or place, it is not an enemy of one nationality or appearance, or even one belief.
Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 as far as I've read - and it seems to me that only the anti-war lobby has suggested anyone has claimed this !
Why aren't we hunting the Taliban ? good question, and we are actually, kind of. Firstly though it really is Al Queda that were the prime target of the campaign as the Taliban were more of a support mechanism for Al Queda. But, back to the idea that "we" have left Al Queda alone. We have not, week upon week there are more arrests of suspected terrorists and known one - in the UK alone we've seen two groups of arrests and the possible foling of an attack. As I said, this is a new kind of war where, unless you're supremely stupid like Al Queda, the enemy doe not bunch up in one place for us to get at them. There are cells of Al Queda all over the world, and some remain in Afganistan and are being hunted by special forces. You have to bear in mind that the perception of what is being done is governed by the UK media - if they don't report it then it never happened. Watching Fox, or the dreaded CNN, gives far more reports of actions in Afghanistan than much of the UK media would have us believe happen. So we are hunting them still, just not in the media spotlight. Same goes for Osama - if anyone does know where he is then we will not hear about it until they have him. On September 12th 2001 a CIA Predator drone, armed with hellfires, relayed images back to the pentagon of Mullah Omar travelling in a convoy. Predator had clear line of sight - but Rumsfeld vetoed the action on legal advice. The idea this war is akin to cowboys and indians is the image those with anti american sentiments want you to believe.
And finally, September 11 was a virtual declaration of war. If you want to be all idealistic then I respect that, but to me no nation on earth is going to take that kind of attack and not respond. Yes, innocents will die in the war on terror, but remember where it all began, that day, and how. This doesn't make alliance inflicted civilian casualties acceptable, but if you've ever known, or talked to, real fighter pilots then one of the things they really impress upon you is that they themselves do not want to hit civilians - its the same as failure to them. Again, anti american supporters would have us believe the american war machine is an implacable terminator like killing machine - it isn;t - those are real people doing jobs.
War will always inflict suffering on people who don't deserve it, ideally there would be no war, but this isn't an ideal world. Either way, I fell the USA and her allies had no choice after 9/11 - the Taliban were requested to hand over Osama Bin Laden and given nearly four weeks to do so. Did Al Queda attempt to legally represent their views to the USA or the UN ? No, they whacked air liners into buildings. Faced with that kind of enemy it is hard to respond peacefully and with a positive effect. Captured people and evidence shows more attacks were being planned in Afghanistan.
~~Belldandy~~
I read all that, and partly agree, but still see no reason in it to suddenly attack Iraq again. Yes, there was an undercurrent between them and the US all this time, but to suddenly move up to 'attack unless we can find evidence not to' approach is a bit harsh.
I'm not nieve in thinking that everyone is innocent, but you can't just lash out randomly if you've been attacked. CNN is an American news station, and isn't free from bias (no news channel or paper ever is), so it would be normal to see more US friendly reports. After all, they don't always report on a lot of the European issues we all hear about
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a war at all, that attitude would have spelt the end for us many years ago, but there is a lot to discuss and attack should be very carefully measured, including looking at possible casualties. After all, war can cost a fortune and bankrupt countries as well as cause more terrible ratifications.
I'm not nieve in thinking that everyone is innocent, but you can't just lash out randomly if you've been attacked. CNN is an American news station, and isn't free from bias (no news channel or paper ever is), so it would be normal to see more US friendly reports. After all, they don't always report on a lot of the European issues we all hear about
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a war at all, that attitude would have spelt the end for us many years ago, but there is a lot to discuss and attack should be very carefully measured, including looking at possible casualties. After all, war can cost a fortune and bankrupt countries as well as cause more terrible ratifications.
Page: