The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In case you missed it, on Wednesday 5th February Colin Powell goes before the UN with new evidence that, it is claimed, will prove the USA/UK alliance case against Saddam.
This is "supposed" to be the real damning stuff. Not vague reports, files e.t.c, but real imagery and intercepted communications.
Over the weekend on Fox, CNN, and in Time and Newsweek, one quote has popped up everywhere from an - as usual- unnamed official;
"Hold on to your hat. We've got it."
The information is supposed to come from the NSA, and such a release of information is unprecedented because it will reveal some of the agency's capability.
Key parts of it are intercepted communications between Iraqi officials saying about the movement and concealment of material, personnel and facilities, and the Iraqi's boasting about it afterwards to each other. This will be alongside imagery showing before inspections and after inspections shots of locations proving the movement and concealment of material e.t.c
Hopefully, this evidence will be as damning as it sounds to be. I feel this is essentially the last shot - the evidence needs to be made public now, not in 100 years time. This is a great chance for America and its allies to prove wrong all those who have criticised them and said Iraq was innocent of this. Beas skeptical as you want, but I honestly believe this is the real deal this time.
~~Belldandy~~
This is "supposed" to be the real damning stuff. Not vague reports, files e.t.c, but real imagery and intercepted communications.
Over the weekend on Fox, CNN, and in Time and Newsweek, one quote has popped up everywhere from an - as usual- unnamed official;
"Hold on to your hat. We've got it."
The information is supposed to come from the NSA, and such a release of information is unprecedented because it will reveal some of the agency's capability.
Key parts of it are intercepted communications between Iraqi officials saying about the movement and concealment of material, personnel and facilities, and the Iraqi's boasting about it afterwards to each other. This will be alongside imagery showing before inspections and after inspections shots of locations proving the movement and concealment of material e.t.c
Hopefully, this evidence will be as damning as it sounds to be. I feel this is essentially the last shot - the evidence needs to be made public now, not in 100 years time. This is a great chance for America and its allies to prove wrong all those who have criticised them and said Iraq was innocent of this. Beas skeptical as you want, but I honestly believe this is the real deal this time.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Lakersrule, so it's ok to deride and sneer at those that present valid
> questions and hesitancy at the possibility of impending war?
and is it alright to mock a man who you've never actually met but just go along with public opinion of Bush being a gun toting cowboy just because he is from Texas? I've seen tons of anti-american and anti-bush posts around here not just from you but from alot of people here yet no-one puts up any argument against that. If i put up half the comments people do here about another country i could guarantee i'd be banned within seconds.
>
> Questions for you to answer:
>
> Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Not being apart of the UN or any government i do not know but then again neither do you unless you have access to such information
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
Once again i do not know you will have to ask him about why he made that decision.
> Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no
> threat towards The West?
I believe this war just to be about Bush finishing off his daddy's work but then again now the war against terror has been started, why not get rid of the most dangerous man in the middle east? it might start to calm things down
> Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
It isn't very smart to start one war and then start another at the same time with another country. You would rather ideally concentrate an attack on one area and when that conflict has been finished start attacking the other with 100% power and not a depleted force which is what the coalition would do if they had to fight a war on 2 fronts. But then again Blair has warned North Korea that they are next if they don't step down from their war-like stance. But again, why is it only America and Britain who have to do something about North Korea? A rogue state with nuclear missiles is a danger to everyone so why isn't any other country doing anything about that and let the coalition concentrate on Iraq?
> Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing
> as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we
> agree"
Because most other European Countries have their own interests in Iraq. For example France are owed $3 billion by Iraq. They're not likely to get that back if it's blown to bits anytime soon are they? Russia has signed a oil deal with Iraq so again they're not going to want it blown to bits and well i don't think i need to explain why Germany is against it. Then of course no country is going to rush into war with the financial implications and the loss of personal involved so there's quite alot of other reasons not to get involved.
> Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of
> feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into
> war.
I'm not attacking those people i'm attacking the anti-american brigade (e.g the mirror readers) who are using the dangers to the Iraqi people as an excuse to have a go at America calling it a war-like country and putting up projections on the House Of Commons, while kindly not considering the fact that the majority of americans are actually against this war themselves. I am totally in favour of waiting until we have proof that Saddam is a threat and don't want war just like the next person. However creating posts making fun of George W Bush every single day so that most of the page has just been filled with the next 'hilarious' joke about George and his 'poodle' Blair is just plain childish and getting quite tiresome.
I don't want to argue with you but this thing has been annoying me for some time and i don't want to spend my time looking through topics like *Bush takes Blair for a walk in the park* just to get to something actually decent. I hope you understand my stance on that.
> Lakersrule, so it's ok to deride and sneer at those that present valid
> questions and hesitancy at the possibility of impending war?
and is it alright to mock a man who you've never actually met but just go along with public opinion of Bush being a gun toting cowboy just because he is from Texas? I've seen tons of anti-american and anti-bush posts around here not just from you but from alot of people here yet no-one puts up any argument against that. If i put up half the comments people do here about another country i could guarantee i'd be banned within seconds.
>
> Questions for you to answer:
>
> Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Not being apart of the UN or any government i do not know but then again neither do you unless you have access to such information
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
Once again i do not know you will have to ask him about why he made that decision.
> Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no
> threat towards The West?
I believe this war just to be about Bush finishing off his daddy's work but then again now the war against terror has been started, why not get rid of the most dangerous man in the middle east? it might start to calm things down
> Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
It isn't very smart to start one war and then start another at the same time with another country. You would rather ideally concentrate an attack on one area and when that conflict has been finished start attacking the other with 100% power and not a depleted force which is what the coalition would do if they had to fight a war on 2 fronts. But then again Blair has warned North Korea that they are next if they don't step down from their war-like stance. But again, why is it only America and Britain who have to do something about North Korea? A rogue state with nuclear missiles is a danger to everyone so why isn't any other country doing anything about that and let the coalition concentrate on Iraq?
> Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing
> as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we
> agree"
Because most other European Countries have their own interests in Iraq. For example France are owed $3 billion by Iraq. They're not likely to get that back if it's blown to bits anytime soon are they? Russia has signed a oil deal with Iraq so again they're not going to want it blown to bits and well i don't think i need to explain why Germany is against it. Then of course no country is going to rush into war with the financial implications and the loss of personal involved so there's quite alot of other reasons not to get involved.
> Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of
> feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into
> war.
I'm not attacking those people i'm attacking the anti-american brigade (e.g the mirror readers) who are using the dangers to the Iraqi people as an excuse to have a go at America calling it a war-like country and putting up projections on the House Of Commons, while kindly not considering the fact that the majority of americans are actually against this war themselves. I am totally in favour of waiting until we have proof that Saddam is a threat and don't want war just like the next person. However creating posts making fun of George W Bush every single day so that most of the page has just been filled with the next 'hilarious' joke about George and his 'poodle' Blair is just plain childish and getting quite tiresome.
I don't want to argue with you but this thing has been annoying me for some time and i don't want to spend my time looking through topics like *Bush takes Blair for a walk in the park* just to get to something actually decent. I hope you understand my stance on that.
pb wrote:
> Maybe the UN should impose a law that states the US should not be
> allowed access to the oil fields if the war goes ahead, that they
> should be given over to a neutral country if needed, see how that
> changes things.
That would certainly make things interesting!
Incidentally, someone told me the other day that the US had admitted that they wanted the oil fields. Is that true? I've been ill for a few days and not really kept up with most of the news.
> Maybe the UN should impose a law that states the US should not be
> allowed access to the oil fields if the war goes ahead, that they
> should be given over to a neutral country if needed, see how that
> changes things.
That would certainly make things interesting!
Incidentally, someone told me the other day that the US had admitted that they wanted the oil fields. Is that true? I've been ill for a few days and not really kept up with most of the news.
The 5th is also Nas.
For a seemingly fake reason, I mean.
The fact that Hussein may have weapons is an excuse for getting rid of him. Russia, for example, has access to plutonium and possible weapons of mass destruction. Why is no-one concerned about them? It would be much easier to simply say they don't want Hussein around and do something about it, rather than go into a war.
They don't bloomin care if hes got them or not. They'll still do it whatever.
They just do the inspections to create an image of prudence....rant rant rant.
*falls asleep*
They just do the inspections to create an image of prudence....rant rant rant.
*falls asleep*
Now that even the 'lap-dog' Blair is stating to the press and public that we should wait, surely this gives out a pretty strong message on how Bush is acting and what everyone believes he will do, despite any evidence to the contrary. Blair has been behind Bush for most of this war rally, but now he seems scared by something, perhaps something in Bush’s eyes, or maybe by the perceptions of a public back home, who knows?
Maybe the UN should impose a law that states the US should not be allowed access to the oil fields if the war goes ahead, that they should be given over to a neutral country if needed, see how that changes things.
Maybe the UN should impose a law that states the US should not be allowed access to the oil fields if the war goes ahead, that they should be given over to a neutral country if needed, see how that changes things.
lalakersrule wrote:
> and still all the Anti-american brigade, parading around as if they
> actually give a stuff about the Iraqi people, wouldn't see anything
> wrong with it.
I presume by anti-American you actually mean anti-war, or even sceptical-about-war. Most of the anti-war movement comes from the political left, and to say that they are 'parading around as if they actually give a stuff about the Iraqi people' is toss of the highest order. It was the left who protested against Saddam gassing people in the eighties, not today's hawks. In fact after Halabja, which is now cited as one reason we must go to war, Donald Rumsfeld toddled off to Iraq to sell Saddam more weapons.
> and still all the Anti-american brigade, parading around as if they
> actually give a stuff about the Iraqi people, wouldn't see anything
> wrong with it.
I presume by anti-American you actually mean anti-war, or even sceptical-about-war. Most of the anti-war movement comes from the political left, and to say that they are 'parading around as if they actually give a stuff about the Iraqi people' is toss of the highest order. It was the left who protested against Saddam gassing people in the eighties, not today's hawks. In fact after Halabja, which is now cited as one reason we must go to war, Donald Rumsfeld toddled off to Iraq to sell Saddam more weapons.
Goatboy wrote:
You commie!
>
Wont somebody think of the astronauts?
----
Best post today
You commie!
>
Wont somebody think of the astronauts?
----
Best post today
Lakersrule, so it's ok to deride and sneer at those that present valid questions and hesitancy at the possibility of impending war?
Questions for you to answer:
Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN Inspectors?
Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no threat towards The West?
Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we agree"
---
Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into war.
Questions for you to answer:
Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN Inspectors?
Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no threat towards The West?
Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we agree"
---
Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into war.
Page: