The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> 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.
September 11 was an attack from a rogue terrorist organisation, not the country of Afghanistan. Although this doesn't happen much anymore, when the IRA kills people with car bombs or such things, you don't see countries declaring war on Ireland. Terrorist groups are people who, in desperation, resort to killing innocents, they are not whole countries. What Bush seems to be doing is lashing out at random and digging up old grudges. Bombing Iraq will have about as much effect as bombing Afghanistan had, killing soldiers and innocents alike, to achieve what? Nothing.
> 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.
September 11 was an attack from a rogue terrorist organisation, not the country of Afghanistan. Although this doesn't happen much anymore, when the IRA kills people with car bombs or such things, you don't see countries declaring war on Ireland. Terrorist groups are people who, in desperation, resort to killing innocents, they are not whole countries. What Bush seems to be doing is lashing out at random and digging up old grudges. Bombing Iraq will have about as much effect as bombing Afghanistan had, killing soldiers and innocents alike, to achieve what? Nothing.
Lombardo wrote:
> September 11 was an attack from a rogue terrorist organisation, not
> the country of Afghanistan.
Only partly true. At the time of the attack the ruling body of Afghanistan was the Taliban who, for many many years had sheltered Osama Bin Laden and his followers, provided support and weapons, and so on. In other words the nations "government" supplied help and support to Bin Laden. Prior to 9/11 America had planned several attempts to get Bin Laden, and Al Queda, in Afghanistan but all had never got past planning due to lack of political willpower. By supporting Al Queda, overtly, the Taliban were just as guilty which is why the campaign focused on Afghanistan, and paved the way for a more inclusive government,
>Although this doesn't happen much anymore,
> when the IRA kills people with car bombs or such things, you don't see
> countries declaring war on Ireland.
This is because the government of Ireland in no way makes statements supporting them ! If they did then you'd not see an Afghanistan type thing anyway, because as you know Ireland isn't Afghanistan ! Different environment, terrain and situation.
>Terrorist groups are people who,
> in desperation, resort to killing innocents, they are not whole
> countries. What Bush seems to be doing is lashing out at random and
> digging up old grudges.
Random ? I think Hans Blix might disagree with you there, and unless I'm mistaken Bush hasn't lashed out at anyone yet, in fact America seems ready to waitt for the UN report later this month. Whilst terrorists are not whole countries, the fact remains that when a nation state provides support to the terrorist groups then they become liable for actions that group commits with that support. Lets be reasonable here - the Taliban gave Al Queda weapons, explosives e.t.c., can you reasonably argue they did not know what they'd do with them ? There is the old argument that much of the Taliban's weaponry came from the West, and that is true in part, because we gave it to them to fight the Russians - who tried to invade Afghanistan in the 80's.
>Bombing Iraq will have about as much effect as
> bombing Afghanistan had, killing soldiers and innocents alike, to
> achieve what? Nothing.
Really ? I don't think any of us here, or the media for that matter, can really assess this. Again though, you're assuming an attack on Iraq is going to be a "level everything" campaign. We know the republican guard is setting itself up in major population areas, whilst regular units aren't. This could well mean a ground attack instead, with air support.
Incidentally what are your feelings on the Iraqi army purposelly setting up in civilian areas ?
Finally, for what it will achieve - no one can say for sure, but I've yet to see an argument that says keeping Saddam in power is a good thing. Whilst he remains there - making no attempt to ease this situation might I add - then peace is going to be an alien concept to Iraq. All Iraq had to do was, with their declaration, say "here are ALL our weapons programmes related to WMDS, come get them", the UN could have gone in, most sanctions would be lifted. But oh no, Iraq decides to do it's usual, how long can we string them out whilst their political will to act is drained, trick.
Think about it ? In whose real interest is it that Saddam isn't removed ? Saddam himself maybe ?
Just want to point out this is what I think about what you've said, if you want to carry on thinking it, I've just put here why I don't understand it.
~~Belldandy~~
> September 11 was an attack from a rogue terrorist organisation, not
> the country of Afghanistan.
Only partly true. At the time of the attack the ruling body of Afghanistan was the Taliban who, for many many years had sheltered Osama Bin Laden and his followers, provided support and weapons, and so on. In other words the nations "government" supplied help and support to Bin Laden. Prior to 9/11 America had planned several attempts to get Bin Laden, and Al Queda, in Afghanistan but all had never got past planning due to lack of political willpower. By supporting Al Queda, overtly, the Taliban were just as guilty which is why the campaign focused on Afghanistan, and paved the way for a more inclusive government,
>Although this doesn't happen much anymore,
> when the IRA kills people with car bombs or such things, you don't see
> countries declaring war on Ireland.
This is because the government of Ireland in no way makes statements supporting them ! If they did then you'd not see an Afghanistan type thing anyway, because as you know Ireland isn't Afghanistan ! Different environment, terrain and situation.
>Terrorist groups are people who,
> in desperation, resort to killing innocents, they are not whole
> countries. What Bush seems to be doing is lashing out at random and
> digging up old grudges.
Random ? I think Hans Blix might disagree with you there, and unless I'm mistaken Bush hasn't lashed out at anyone yet, in fact America seems ready to waitt for the UN report later this month. Whilst terrorists are not whole countries, the fact remains that when a nation state provides support to the terrorist groups then they become liable for actions that group commits with that support. Lets be reasonable here - the Taliban gave Al Queda weapons, explosives e.t.c., can you reasonably argue they did not know what they'd do with them ? There is the old argument that much of the Taliban's weaponry came from the West, and that is true in part, because we gave it to them to fight the Russians - who tried to invade Afghanistan in the 80's.
>Bombing Iraq will have about as much effect as
> bombing Afghanistan had, killing soldiers and innocents alike, to
> achieve what? Nothing.
Really ? I don't think any of us here, or the media for that matter, can really assess this. Again though, you're assuming an attack on Iraq is going to be a "level everything" campaign. We know the republican guard is setting itself up in major population areas, whilst regular units aren't. This could well mean a ground attack instead, with air support.
Incidentally what are your feelings on the Iraqi army purposelly setting up in civilian areas ?
Finally, for what it will achieve - no one can say for sure, but I've yet to see an argument that says keeping Saddam in power is a good thing. Whilst he remains there - making no attempt to ease this situation might I add - then peace is going to be an alien concept to Iraq. All Iraq had to do was, with their declaration, say "here are ALL our weapons programmes related to WMDS, come get them", the UN could have gone in, most sanctions would be lifted. But oh no, Iraq decides to do it's usual, how long can we string them out whilst their political will to act is drained, trick.
Think about it ? In whose real interest is it that Saddam isn't removed ? Saddam himself maybe ?
Just want to point out this is what I think about what you've said, if you want to carry on thinking it, I've just put here why I don't understand it.
~~Belldandy~~
Tphi, The wrote:
> i served in vietnam wrote:
> when is saddam going to launch a womd at us.
>
> a womd?
Ah yes, the greatly feared "Wombat Bomb".
Yes, it is launched and explodes above the target city, releasing hundreds and hundreds of hungry wombats, causing total havoc.
Tis' feared by all.
> i served in vietnam wrote:
> when is saddam going to launch a womd at us.
>
> a womd?
Ah yes, the greatly feared "Wombat Bomb".
Yes, it is launched and explodes above the target city, releasing hundreds and hundreds of hungry wombats, causing total havoc.
Tis' feared by all.
Azul²°°³ wrote:
> Ah yes, the greatly feared "Wombat Bomb".
>
> Yes, it is launched and explodes above the target city, releasing
> hundreds and hundreds of hungry wombats, causing total havoc.
>
> Tis' feared by all.
*screams in terror*
i'm going to hide under my bed till all the wars stop, which will be never...
> Ah yes, the greatly feared "Wombat Bomb".
>
> Yes, it is launched and explodes above the target city, releasing
> hundreds and hundreds of hungry wombats, causing total havoc.
>
> Tis' feared by all.
*screams in terror*
i'm going to hide under my bed till all the wars stop, which will be never...
*sighs* maybe if someone tells people this for about the 1,000th time it may get through eventually.
It was not a war on the country of Afghanistan or the people of Afghanistan it was a war on the Taliban who governed that country and so of course happened to live there. All the USA wanted was either the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to them and all his cronies or at least tell them the whereabouts of Bin Laden and they'd have gone and got him themselves. They have no grudge against the people of Afghanistan. Every single life lost there is on the Talibans hands and not the Coalitions.
Now we have a similar scenario in Iraq. Everyone is crying about *this is a war on Iraq* ermmm no it's not it's actually a war on the regime in Iraq namely Saddam Husseins regime. Once again America and Britain (and whatever other countries decide to actually do something this time around) have no grudge against the Iraqi people they are only after Saddam hoping to topple him and bring in a democratic system which doesn't entail the usual *vote for the other guy and i'll get my soldiers to kill you and your family* system that's been in place since Saddams been around.
And contrary to popular Anti-American, Daily Al Qa'ida Mirror readers opinions, Americans don't want a war like anyone else, infact on Fox the other day they had a poll and there was quite a big vote against War in Iraq. Obviously they must have forgotten to put that in their paper amongst the usual *oooh we suddenly found 100 Americans conveniently standing outside our office and they couldn't point out where Iraq was on a map* i very much doubt 100 British people would do any better either.
It was not a war on the country of Afghanistan or the people of Afghanistan it was a war on the Taliban who governed that country and so of course happened to live there. All the USA wanted was either the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to them and all his cronies or at least tell them the whereabouts of Bin Laden and they'd have gone and got him themselves. They have no grudge against the people of Afghanistan. Every single life lost there is on the Talibans hands and not the Coalitions.
Now we have a similar scenario in Iraq. Everyone is crying about *this is a war on Iraq* ermmm no it's not it's actually a war on the regime in Iraq namely Saddam Husseins regime. Once again America and Britain (and whatever other countries decide to actually do something this time around) have no grudge against the Iraqi people they are only after Saddam hoping to topple him and bring in a democratic system which doesn't entail the usual *vote for the other guy and i'll get my soldiers to kill you and your family* system that's been in place since Saddams been around.
And contrary to popular Anti-American, Daily Al Qa'ida Mirror readers opinions, Americans don't want a war like anyone else, infact on Fox the other day they had a poll and there was quite a big vote against War in Iraq. Obviously they must have forgotten to put that in their paper amongst the usual *oooh we suddenly found 100 Americans conveniently standing outside our office and they couldn't point out where Iraq was on a map* i very much doubt 100 British people would do any better either.
In my opinion, the UN inspectors should make several more thorough checks for weapons of mass destructions, then carry out yearly checks. A war isn't really needed, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to invade or attack any countries, so there is not any need to remove him from power. Think about it, its logical. Killing soldiers and civilians needlessly is not the answer, Iraq has already allowed UN weapons inspectors in (this was Bush's primary reason for wanting to take military action) so as long as they let the weapons inpectors stay, no military action is required.
lalakersrule wrote:
> *sighs* maybe if someone tells people this for about the 1,000th time
> it may get through eventually.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't. I know, I've tried since the campaign in OCtober 2001, and we still went there to blow Afghanistan to bits in many peoples opinion on here.
*waits to be accused of telling people they are wrong and he is always right*
~~Belldandy~~
> *sighs* maybe if someone tells people this for about the 1,000th time
> it may get through eventually.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't. I know, I've tried since the campaign in OCtober 2001, and we still went there to blow Afghanistan to bits in many peoples opinion on here.
*waits to be accused of telling people they are wrong and he is always right*
~~Belldandy~~
Lombardo wrote:
> In my opinion, the UN inspectors should make several more thorough
> checks for weapons of mass destructions, then carry out yearly checks.
> A war isn't really needed, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to invade
> or attack any countries, so there is not any need to remove him from
> power. Think about it, its logical. Killing soldiers and civilians
> needlessly is not the answer, Iraq has already allowed UN weapons
> inspectors in (this was Bush's primary reason for wanting to take
> military action) so as long as they let the weapons inpectors stay, no
> military action is required.
Okay, what happened earlier this week ? Hans Blix, live speech from Belgium, says Iraq is not giving proactive help, or being generally helpful whatsoever. That is hardly abiding by the resolution allowing the UN back in is it ? Nor did part of that same resolution say Iraq had the right to shadow the UN inspectors everywhere they went.
So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in 1990 ? No. In addition, under his regime political opponents are imprisoned, tortured, family members raped, made to disappear, executed, elections are not free or fair, Saddam diverts money for food to the military, he has a concealed weapons program, he regularly threatens the West and Israel...need I go on ? Sure, his is not the only regime that needs changing, but it's a good enough place to start. By the way, Iraq is not same situation as N.Korea - not that you have said it is, just wanted to point it out.
Killing ? The soldiers of Iraq's army have - those who survived - showed little compassion for the scores they killed and tortured and raped in Kuwait, and they know full well what will happen in a new Gulf Conflict. They'll lose, far worse than they did last time. In 1991 Allied pilots actually held fire on the "Highway Of Death" on retreating Iraqi's vehicles and troops who did not threaten them, those who did fire at them were destroyed. Iraq's army is Saddam's power, without force a dictator is weak. Sure, he had the Republican Guard, the "elite"....which we found out in 1991 equate to the standards of our own regular troops by and large.
Civilians - I've made my opinion on this clear, but I notice you avoid the question about Iraq's military moving into civilian areas ? Can you, or anyone else defend that when the Iraqi's main media card is the dangers of civilians dying ?
~~Belldandy~~
> In my opinion, the UN inspectors should make several more thorough
> checks for weapons of mass destructions, then carry out yearly checks.
> A war isn't really needed, Saddam Hussein is not threatening to invade
> or attack any countries, so there is not any need to remove him from
> power. Think about it, its logical. Killing soldiers and civilians
> needlessly is not the answer, Iraq has already allowed UN weapons
> inspectors in (this was Bush's primary reason for wanting to take
> military action) so as long as they let the weapons inpectors stay, no
> military action is required.
Okay, what happened earlier this week ? Hans Blix, live speech from Belgium, says Iraq is not giving proactive help, or being generally helpful whatsoever. That is hardly abiding by the resolution allowing the UN back in is it ? Nor did part of that same resolution say Iraq had the right to shadow the UN inspectors everywhere they went.
So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in 1990 ? No. In addition, under his regime political opponents are imprisoned, tortured, family members raped, made to disappear, executed, elections are not free or fair, Saddam diverts money for food to the military, he has a concealed weapons program, he regularly threatens the West and Israel...need I go on ? Sure, his is not the only regime that needs changing, but it's a good enough place to start. By the way, Iraq is not same situation as N.Korea - not that you have said it is, just wanted to point it out.
Killing ? The soldiers of Iraq's army have - those who survived - showed little compassion for the scores they killed and tortured and raped in Kuwait, and they know full well what will happen in a new Gulf Conflict. They'll lose, far worse than they did last time. In 1991 Allied pilots actually held fire on the "Highway Of Death" on retreating Iraqi's vehicles and troops who did not threaten them, those who did fire at them were destroyed. Iraq's army is Saddam's power, without force a dictator is weak. Sure, he had the Republican Guard, the "elite"....which we found out in 1991 equate to the standards of our own regular troops by and large.
Civilians - I've made my opinion on this clear, but I notice you avoid the question about Iraq's military moving into civilian areas ? Can you, or anyone else defend that when the Iraqi's main media card is the dangers of civilians dying ?
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September
> 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same
> response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in
> 1990 ? No
Military action involves killing people, thus decisions of this magnitude should not be made on "what ifs," I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems pretty much neutral at the moment.
> So, Saddam isn't a threat ? If I had asked anyne here, on September
> 10th, about Al Queda and Bin Laden, then I'd have got the same
> response. Was Iraq a threat to Kuwait the week before the invasion in
> 1990 ? No
Military action involves killing people, thus decisions of this magnitude should not be made on "what ifs," I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems pretty much neutral at the moment.
Lombardo wrote:
> I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems
> pretty much neutral at the moment.
I agree, all his talk of "we will rise up" etc. is just all talk. really, hes a big girls blouse and calls himself Henrietta at the weekends.
Seriously, he's mad enough to do anything, he knows hes going to loose, has killed his own people before, what has he got to loose?
> I really doubt Saddam Hussein WOULD try and take on the West, he seems
> pretty much neutral at the moment.
I agree, all his talk of "we will rise up" etc. is just all talk. really, hes a big girls blouse and calls himself Henrietta at the weekends.
Seriously, he's mad enough to do anything, he knows hes going to loose, has killed his own people before, what has he got to loose?
Page: