The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, this morning whilst watching Sky News they ran the piece about the lack of support from France, Germany, Russia and China. My Mum - who I sadly admit does read the Daily Mail - said;
"Well that's the end of that, they can't do it without allies."
Most of you know me, and what I was likely to say. I pointed out that America had us, and could do it themselves if they had to, and have said that all along. She then said the greatest bit of Daily Mail thinking yet;
"Well if there's a war they'll start calling people your age up, how'd you like that ?"
At that I let it drop, and because she'd gone to work. Me ? I'm thinking working as a classroom assistant surounded by the appalingly behaved kids they have where she works is finally getting to her.
Even so, the idea of call ups for the Gulf is slightly ridiculous. Why ? Well here's Belldandy's 5 point reasoning on this;
1* It's going to be an American led operation, sure, we've put a quarter of the army in and other assets, but the tip of the spear is the USA at this point. In a non UN campagin the USA will want to take the major places itself where possible, thus absorbing the brunt of the casualties.
2* So far only specialist units have gone out there, reserves are being used for non combatant roles like signals, engineering e.t.c, but the other units are commando (45?), the desert rats armoured division e.t.c. Not regular units, like what happened in the Gulf War. Elite style units take less casualties as they are not used in equal odds fights. Same goes for american deployments.
3* Any campaign will be begun by air strikes, suggested at 1 week minimum.
4* If casualties did spiral to the point where this was suggested then there isn't public support for it anyway, especially not in the UK. Over half the nation doesn't even want to go there let alone send a generation off to war their. In this scenario I think one of two things most likely; a withdrawal from Iraq, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Think about it, a situation where our forces are getting massacred this badly would have to be pretty dire, to tip the balance I really do believe that, in the face of mass casualties and a need to quickly win, we'd use the weapons.
5* Mass casualties would, unless WMDs are used, result from a prolonged war. Does anyone seriously think that, in a full on attack, Iraq can hold out any better than last time ? I don't, even if they go urban they ar finished.
So there you have it. Feel free to reply, point by point, to it, or ignore it, or something. Remember it's all about the oil kids..*sigh* Incidentally, again, Sky News played some footage from a protest about the possible war in Iraq, and there were some people from the Fire Brigade with their messages painted on stop the war coalition sign. What has better pay e.t.c got to do with Iraq ? Er...nothing. If the firefighters want to play silly b&ggers like that then let them, but don't be surprised if they lose more support all the time.
~~Belldandy~~
"Well that's the end of that, they can't do it without allies."
Most of you know me, and what I was likely to say. I pointed out that America had us, and could do it themselves if they had to, and have said that all along. She then said the greatest bit of Daily Mail thinking yet;
"Well if there's a war they'll start calling people your age up, how'd you like that ?"
At that I let it drop, and because she'd gone to work. Me ? I'm thinking working as a classroom assistant surounded by the appalingly behaved kids they have where she works is finally getting to her.
Even so, the idea of call ups for the Gulf is slightly ridiculous. Why ? Well here's Belldandy's 5 point reasoning on this;
1* It's going to be an American led operation, sure, we've put a quarter of the army in and other assets, but the tip of the spear is the USA at this point. In a non UN campagin the USA will want to take the major places itself where possible, thus absorbing the brunt of the casualties.
2* So far only specialist units have gone out there, reserves are being used for non combatant roles like signals, engineering e.t.c, but the other units are commando (45?), the desert rats armoured division e.t.c. Not regular units, like what happened in the Gulf War. Elite style units take less casualties as they are not used in equal odds fights. Same goes for american deployments.
3* Any campaign will be begun by air strikes, suggested at 1 week minimum.
4* If casualties did spiral to the point where this was suggested then there isn't public support for it anyway, especially not in the UK. Over half the nation doesn't even want to go there let alone send a generation off to war their. In this scenario I think one of two things most likely; a withdrawal from Iraq, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Think about it, a situation where our forces are getting massacred this badly would have to be pretty dire, to tip the balance I really do believe that, in the face of mass casualties and a need to quickly win, we'd use the weapons.
5* Mass casualties would, unless WMDs are used, result from a prolonged war. Does anyone seriously think that, in a full on attack, Iraq can hold out any better than last time ? I don't, even if they go urban they ar finished.
So there you have it. Feel free to reply, point by point, to it, or ignore it, or something. Remember it's all about the oil kids..*sigh* Incidentally, again, Sky News played some footage from a protest about the possible war in Iraq, and there were some people from the Fire Brigade with their messages painted on stop the war coalition sign. What has better pay e.t.c got to do with Iraq ? Er...nothing. If the firefighters want to play silly b&ggers like that then let them, but don't be surprised if they lose more support all the time.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> That country doesn't even have swimming pools.
That was Afghanistan, wasn't it? I thought there was only one in the whole country and it belonged to Mohammed Omar (or some other evil beardy terrorist), only the Americans bombed it, which I found hilarious.
> That country doesn't even have swimming pools.
That was Afghanistan, wasn't it? I thought there was only one in the whole country and it belonged to Mohammed Omar (or some other evil beardy terrorist), only the Americans bombed it, which I found hilarious.
I liked the headline on the front page of the Mirror this morning ( Saw it on the telly - didn't buy it ! )
TONE DEAF
With a list of the things that Tony is not listening to.
i.e. most of the stuff you two just wrote down - Germany, France, Russia and China all against any action - the majority of the British public against any action (Tony will no doubt use the " You voted for us so we cn do what we like" speech again), Even the opinion polls in the good old USofA are showing that the Yanks support is starting to wane.
TONE DEAF
With a list of the things that Tony is not listening to.
i.e. most of the stuff you two just wrote down - Germany, France, Russia and China all against any action - the majority of the British public against any action (Tony will no doubt use the " You voted for us so we cn do what we like" speech again), Even the opinion polls in the good old USofA are showing that the Yanks support is starting to wane.
I just find it amusing that more and more countries are saying "actually naah, we're having nothing to do with this".
It'll get to the point where it's just us and America, everyone else is getting on with their own countries problems whilst we frantically hurl ordanance at Saddam Hussein ignoring the fire strikes, lack of teachers and rapidly disillusioned existing ones, spiralling NHS queues etc etc etc.
I have a mental image of Britain lining up outside Number 10 saying "Prime Minister, I - your electorate - have a problem with.."
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU! SADDAM EVIL!"
"Yes, but we're concerned about our own lives more than him"
"HITLER EVIL MAN! CHEMICALS IN YOUR CHIPS! IMMIGRANT IRAQI TERRORISTS!!"
"Listen Prime Minister, I'm more concerned about my family's future"
"WE MUST BOMB HIM"
I firmly believe in sorting out your own backyard before telling someone else what to do.
This country is falling down the toilet and interest seems to be in stopping someone that has never initiated terrorist action against us or any other European country. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Please...does anyone remember SCUD missiles? They couldn't even aim those things. No Air Force to speak of and we're supposed to be believe he has weapons of mass destruction???
That country doesn't even have swimming pools.
It'll get to the point where it's just us and America, everyone else is getting on with their own countries problems whilst we frantically hurl ordanance at Saddam Hussein ignoring the fire strikes, lack of teachers and rapidly disillusioned existing ones, spiralling NHS queues etc etc etc.
I have a mental image of Britain lining up outside Number 10 saying "Prime Minister, I - your electorate - have a problem with.."
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU! SADDAM EVIL!"
"Yes, but we're concerned about our own lives more than him"
"HITLER EVIL MAN! CHEMICALS IN YOUR CHIPS! IMMIGRANT IRAQI TERRORISTS!!"
"Listen Prime Minister, I'm more concerned about my family's future"
"WE MUST BOMB HIM"
I firmly believe in sorting out your own backyard before telling someone else what to do.
This country is falling down the toilet and interest seems to be in stopping someone that has never initiated terrorist action against us or any other European country. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Please...does anyone remember SCUD missiles? They couldn't even aim those things. No Air Force to speak of and we're supposed to be believe he has weapons of mass destruction???
That country doesn't even have swimming pools.
So, this morning whilst watching Sky News they ran the piece about the lack of support from France, Germany, Russia and China. My Mum - who I sadly admit does read the Daily Mail - said;
"Well that's the end of that, they can't do it without allies."
Most of you know me, and what I was likely to say. I pointed out that America had us, and could do it themselves if they had to, and have said that all along. She then said the greatest bit of Daily Mail thinking yet;
"Well if there's a war they'll start calling people your age up, how'd you like that ?"
At that I let it drop, and because she'd gone to work. Me ? I'm thinking working as a classroom assistant surounded by the appalingly behaved kids they have where she works is finally getting to her.
Even so, the idea of call ups for the Gulf is slightly ridiculous. Why ? Well here's Belldandy's 5 point reasoning on this;
1* It's going to be an American led operation, sure, we've put a quarter of the army in and other assets, but the tip of the spear is the USA at this point. In a non UN campagin the USA will want to take the major places itself where possible, thus absorbing the brunt of the casualties.
2* So far only specialist units have gone out there, reserves are being used for non combatant roles like signals, engineering e.t.c, but the other units are commando (45?), the desert rats armoured division e.t.c. Not regular units, like what happened in the Gulf War. Elite style units take less casualties as they are not used in equal odds fights. Same goes for american deployments.
3* Any campaign will be begun by air strikes, suggested at 1 week minimum.
4* If casualties did spiral to the point where this was suggested then there isn't public support for it anyway, especially not in the UK. Over half the nation doesn't even want to go there let alone send a generation off to war their. In this scenario I think one of two things most likely; a withdrawal from Iraq, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Think about it, a situation where our forces are getting massacred this badly would have to be pretty dire, to tip the balance I really do believe that, in the face of mass casualties and a need to quickly win, we'd use the weapons.
5* Mass casualties would, unless WMDs are used, result from a prolonged war. Does anyone seriously think that, in a full on attack, Iraq can hold out any better than last time ? I don't, even if they go urban they ar finished.
So there you have it. Feel free to reply, point by point, to it, or ignore it, or something. Remember it's all about the oil kids..*sigh* Incidentally, again, Sky News played some footage from a protest about the possible war in Iraq, and there were some people from the Fire Brigade with their messages painted on stop the war coalition sign. What has better pay e.t.c got to do with Iraq ? Er...nothing. If the firefighters want to play silly b&ggers like that then let them, but don't be surprised if they lose more support all the time.
~~Belldandy~~
"Well that's the end of that, they can't do it without allies."
Most of you know me, and what I was likely to say. I pointed out that America had us, and could do it themselves if they had to, and have said that all along. She then said the greatest bit of Daily Mail thinking yet;
"Well if there's a war they'll start calling people your age up, how'd you like that ?"
At that I let it drop, and because she'd gone to work. Me ? I'm thinking working as a classroom assistant surounded by the appalingly behaved kids they have where she works is finally getting to her.
Even so, the idea of call ups for the Gulf is slightly ridiculous. Why ? Well here's Belldandy's 5 point reasoning on this;
1* It's going to be an American led operation, sure, we've put a quarter of the army in and other assets, but the tip of the spear is the USA at this point. In a non UN campagin the USA will want to take the major places itself where possible, thus absorbing the brunt of the casualties.
2* So far only specialist units have gone out there, reserves are being used for non combatant roles like signals, engineering e.t.c, but the other units are commando (45?), the desert rats armoured division e.t.c. Not regular units, like what happened in the Gulf War. Elite style units take less casualties as they are not used in equal odds fights. Same goes for american deployments.
3* Any campaign will be begun by air strikes, suggested at 1 week minimum.
4* If casualties did spiral to the point where this was suggested then there isn't public support for it anyway, especially not in the UK. Over half the nation doesn't even want to go there let alone send a generation off to war their. In this scenario I think one of two things most likely; a withdrawal from Iraq, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Think about it, a situation where our forces are getting massacred this badly would have to be pretty dire, to tip the balance I really do believe that, in the face of mass casualties and a need to quickly win, we'd use the weapons.
5* Mass casualties would, unless WMDs are used, result from a prolonged war. Does anyone seriously think that, in a full on attack, Iraq can hold out any better than last time ? I don't, even if they go urban they ar finished.
So there you have it. Feel free to reply, point by point, to it, or ignore it, or something. Remember it's all about the oil kids..*sigh* Incidentally, again, Sky News played some footage from a protest about the possible war in Iraq, and there were some people from the Fire Brigade with their messages painted on stop the war coalition sign. What has better pay e.t.c got to do with Iraq ? Er...nothing. If the firefighters want to play silly b&ggers like that then let them, but don't be surprised if they lose more support all the time.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: