The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
That Colin Powell will be presenting conclusive evidence that Iraq is misleading weapons inspectors. Apparently.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
With that in mind, perhaps it is worth drawing your attention to a UK intelligence memo dated January 12th 2003. In it, you will find that it is the considered opinion of this particular intelligence gathering outfit that "any fledgling links between Al-Quaida and Iraq foundered due to incompatible ideaologies".
Because, if you remember, we're going to war with Saddam because Sept 11th (perpetrated by Al-Quaida) proved what a threat Iraq, with it's total lack of links with Usama and his buddies, really is.
Not, and I can't make this clear enough, to safeguard cheap oil supplies for the next 15 years.
Page:
Incidentally, check out the link in the first post of the
"Saddam & Dubya - not too dissimilar after all..." thread in this forum.
Put's a different perspective on the US's actions of late.
"Saddam & Dubya - not too dissimilar after all..." thread in this forum.
Put's a different perspective on the US's actions of late.
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh yeah, right, which would be why a senior Al Queda Lt is living in
> Baghdad, having entered a country that strictly controls all entry and
> exit, and having been treated in the hospitals of that country. Go
> watch what he said, or maybe you don't want to be convinced ?
I'd love to be convinced. That's just it - convinced, not made suspicious.
>
> Why oh why so many believe Iraq - a state who I'm not even going to
> list its long number of lies e.t.c - over two countries for whom war
> means little gain, is beyond me. But, in true democratic style, if
> you'd rather believe a paranoid dictator who silences all opposition
> over two people who were actually elected then feel free.....
>
It's not a case of believing Saddam and Iraq, it's a case of recognising the warmongering antcis of the US government as little short of terrorism itself. The recent and not-so recent history of the US foreign policy (Columbia over the last 20 years, Afghanistan pre-911, Korea...the list goes on) reads like an excerpt from a war crimes trial. After all, it was the US that funded and provided training to Al-Quaeda in the first place to destabilise the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. And quite frankly, I don't trust them an inch, and honestly believe that they're bare-faced liars, manipulators and all-round b*stards.
I'm not denying that Saddam needs dealing with, and is himself a thoroughly evil man. I just don't like the idea of America (and therefore it's lapdog, the British) going to war without legal backing from the international community, for it's own reasons, which I feel are far from it's publicly stated reasons. Especially when they play the human rights card (the poor people of Iraq, etc), which is hypocrasy of the highest order, true though it is.
> Oh yeah, right, which would be why a senior Al Queda Lt is living in
> Baghdad, having entered a country that strictly controls all entry and
> exit, and having been treated in the hospitals of that country. Go
> watch what he said, or maybe you don't want to be convinced ?
I'd love to be convinced. That's just it - convinced, not made suspicious.
>
> Why oh why so many believe Iraq - a state who I'm not even going to
> list its long number of lies e.t.c - over two countries for whom war
> means little gain, is beyond me. But, in true democratic style, if
> you'd rather believe a paranoid dictator who silences all opposition
> over two people who were actually elected then feel free.....
>
It's not a case of believing Saddam and Iraq, it's a case of recognising the warmongering antcis of the US government as little short of terrorism itself. The recent and not-so recent history of the US foreign policy (Columbia over the last 20 years, Afghanistan pre-911, Korea...the list goes on) reads like an excerpt from a war crimes trial. After all, it was the US that funded and provided training to Al-Quaeda in the first place to destabilise the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. And quite frankly, I don't trust them an inch, and honestly believe that they're bare-faced liars, manipulators and all-round b*stards.
I'm not denying that Saddam needs dealing with, and is himself a thoroughly evil man. I just don't like the idea of America (and therefore it's lapdog, the British) going to war without legal backing from the international community, for it's own reasons, which I feel are far from it's publicly stated reasons. Especially when they play the human rights card (the poor people of Iraq, etc), which is hypocrasy of the highest order, true though it is.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Any day now, China will join forces with N Korea and start laughing
> heartily at the possibility of USA trying to take them on...
Okay so I read down further....
China and N.Korea's trump cards are nukes, and little else. Sure, they have massive ground forces and armoured divisions and the air support to back that up BUT everything points to the level of training these units have being, in the most case, well below the typical US level of training. In particular both N Korea and China lack special forces on all but a limited level. China could roll up the Russian border, N Korea could over run S Korea in days, but both would only have mere days to consolidate that territory AND both nations would be faced with having to defend their homelands. Sure, they can threated the big N, but they know that this means retaliation, and the whole of the UN against them. America, whilst having nukes as an option, has the two things neither nation has - Stealths and Special Forces.
The Stealths - mainly the B2 because the F117 can be detected - and the new F22 Raptor - could pentrate into either country and deliver conventional weapons on just about anywhere they wished. A weakness of the B2 has always been the possibility of fighter interception, but the F22 makes up for that. Make no mistake, if either China or N Korea started a war no one would shirk from whacking bombs on major population centres to break their will.
Special forces are also a major advantage, and by this I mean the real ones - not the Rangers - Delta, Seals, Green Berets, all could be inserted into either country and play sheer havoc.
Sure, if you're looking at a war where you assume numbers equals victory then N Korea and China win hands down, but if you look at technology and training, and weapons that can actually be used. then America can take them - not forgetting that any action against America invokes the NATO charter, and with membership expanding that would effectively put either N Korea or China against most of the world....
~~Belldandy~~
> Any day now, China will join forces with N Korea and start laughing
> heartily at the possibility of USA trying to take them on...
Okay so I read down further....
China and N.Korea's trump cards are nukes, and little else. Sure, they have massive ground forces and armoured divisions and the air support to back that up BUT everything points to the level of training these units have being, in the most case, well below the typical US level of training. In particular both N Korea and China lack special forces on all but a limited level. China could roll up the Russian border, N Korea could over run S Korea in days, but both would only have mere days to consolidate that territory AND both nations would be faced with having to defend their homelands. Sure, they can threated the big N, but they know that this means retaliation, and the whole of the UN against them. America, whilst having nukes as an option, has the two things neither nation has - Stealths and Special Forces.
The Stealths - mainly the B2 because the F117 can be detected - and the new F22 Raptor - could pentrate into either country and deliver conventional weapons on just about anywhere they wished. A weakness of the B2 has always been the possibility of fighter interception, but the F22 makes up for that. Make no mistake, if either China or N Korea started a war no one would shirk from whacking bombs on major population centres to break their will.
Special forces are also a major advantage, and by this I mean the real ones - not the Rangers - Delta, Seals, Green Berets, all could be inserted into either country and play sheer havoc.
Sure, if you're looking at a war where you assume numbers equals victory then N Korea and China win hands down, but if you look at technology and training, and weapons that can actually be used. then America can take them - not forgetting that any action against America invokes the NATO charter, and with membership expanding that would effectively put either N Korea or China against most of the world....
~~Belldandy~~
Jonman wrote:
> Powell did far from 'prove' any link between Iraq and Al-Queada (or
> however it's spelt).
Oh yeah, right, which would be why a senior Al Queda Lt is living in Baghdad, having entered a country that strictly controls all entry and exit, and having been treated in the hospitals of that country. Go watch what he said, or maybe you don't want to be convinced ?
Actually, I'm starting to think that it'd be worth ignoring terrorism, and Iraq, if just for the moment when the next 9/11 style attack happens in THIS country. Then, as we sift through the wreckage and burnt ash or whatever, we can all come to a realisation that both Iraq, and Terrorism, is a threat. By which time it will be too late, but what the heck, you'll have conclusive proof.
Why oh why so many believe Iraq - a state who I'm not even going to list its long number of lies e.t.c - over two countries for whom war means little gain, is beyond me. But, in true democratic style, if you'd rather believe a paranoid dictator who silences all opposition over two people who were actually elected then feel free.....
Apologies if anyone else - like Light - has posted further down, can't be bothered to go down any further really, because it really does make a difference doesn't it ? Not........
~~Belldandy~~
> Powell did far from 'prove' any link between Iraq and Al-Queada (or
> however it's spelt).
Oh yeah, right, which would be why a senior Al Queda Lt is living in Baghdad, having entered a country that strictly controls all entry and exit, and having been treated in the hospitals of that country. Go watch what he said, or maybe you don't want to be convinced ?
Actually, I'm starting to think that it'd be worth ignoring terrorism, and Iraq, if just for the moment when the next 9/11 style attack happens in THIS country. Then, as we sift through the wreckage and burnt ash or whatever, we can all come to a realisation that both Iraq, and Terrorism, is a threat. By which time it will be too late, but what the heck, you'll have conclusive proof.
Why oh why so many believe Iraq - a state who I'm not even going to list its long number of lies e.t.c - over two countries for whom war means little gain, is beyond me. But, in true democratic style, if you'd rather believe a paranoid dictator who silences all opposition over two people who were actually elected then feel free.....
Apologies if anyone else - like Light - has posted further down, can't be bothered to go down any further really, because it really does make a difference doesn't it ? Not........
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> This war for oil thing is getting pretty repetitive isn't it ? Is that
> the best you can do ? How about saying Bush wants to use the whole
> country as one big ranch.....it's equally as stupid. And Powell just
> proved Al Queda links so....you're stupid. And I don't really give a
> toss about any big long sarcastic e.t.c reply you make because at this
> point, anyone who says action against Iraq is not necessary quite
> frankly is ignoring the obvious.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Powell did far from 'prove' any link between Iraq and Al-Queada (or however it's spelt). His evidence at best was inclonclusive, and at worst, circumstantial. Added to the fact that in the recent past (Gulf War), America produced 'evidence' that they used to justify lauching an offensive that was later shown to be a blatent lie by independant investigators. Can they be trusted? Can we (the British)?
Both the US and USA have changed tack so many times on the reasons for action against Iraq that we've all lost track, and more importantly become cynical about anything further they tell us.
Boy who cried wolf anyone?
While I agree that some action against Iraq (and notably, Saddam's regime), is a war the answer? Can we justify the loss of life to the Iraqi people that will no doubt occur, whether it's our weapons that hit then accidentally, or Saddam's intentionally?
> This war for oil thing is getting pretty repetitive isn't it ? Is that
> the best you can do ? How about saying Bush wants to use the whole
> country as one big ranch.....it's equally as stupid. And Powell just
> proved Al Queda links so....you're stupid. And I don't really give a
> toss about any big long sarcastic e.t.c reply you make because at this
> point, anyone who says action against Iraq is not necessary quite
> frankly is ignoring the obvious.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Powell did far from 'prove' any link between Iraq and Al-Queada (or however it's spelt). His evidence at best was inclonclusive, and at worst, circumstantial. Added to the fact that in the recent past (Gulf War), America produced 'evidence' that they used to justify lauching an offensive that was later shown to be a blatent lie by independant investigators. Can they be trusted? Can we (the British)?
Both the US and USA have changed tack so many times on the reasons for action against Iraq that we've all lost track, and more importantly become cynical about anything further they tell us.
Boy who cried wolf anyone?
While I agree that some action against Iraq (and notably, Saddam's regime), is a war the answer? Can we justify the loss of life to the Iraqi people that will no doubt occur, whether it's our weapons that hit then accidentally, or Saddam's intentionally?
Israel has also been committing the same crime that Iraq is being condemned for. There is a UN resolution ordering them to withdraw from the occupied territories. Any sign of Dubya authorising an invasion to hold them to it? No? Funny that...
Thing is, does anyone actually believe that the world will be a safer place and the lot of the Iraqi people will improve after this war?
Thing is, does anyone actually believe that the world will be a safer place and the lot of the Iraqi people will improve after this war?
Just some pointless information
I was watching a program... they were at the border in Korea and obviously weren't allowed into N.Korea. But you could see over the border where there is a town, but nobody lives there. They just built it for some reason... to suggest something or something
Errr America would get destroyed if they went to war
I was watching a program... they were at the border in Korea and obviously weren't allowed into N.Korea. But you could see over the border where there is a town, but nobody lives there. They just built it for some reason... to suggest something or something
Errr America would get destroyed if they went to war
Any day now, China will join forces with N Korea and start laughing heartily at the possibility of USA trying to take them on...
But, doesn't the UK have nuclear weapons too? Does that mean we get to talk with Bush as well later on? Or are we further down his list of 'things to do'?
Bush has backed himself into a corner.
He's been so vocal about Hussein because of "weapons of mass destruction", that when the world said "Korea has nuclear weapons now and they're a lot bigger than Iraq", Bush was all "Yeah, they're next on the list for talks"
Korea's response?
"Any attempt to impose sanctions will be considered an act of war"
United States backs down and decides to move troops in instead to "monitor"
Korea's response?
"Send troops here and we'll destroy you"
Basically, The States ain't gonna take on North Korea because they dont stand a chance. They only like to tell small countries that present zero threat what to do.
Hence Iraq is a bad man country yet India and Pakistan are not their problem.
It's funny to watch
He's been so vocal about Hussein because of "weapons of mass destruction", that when the world said "Korea has nuclear weapons now and they're a lot bigger than Iraq", Bush was all "Yeah, they're next on the list for talks"
Korea's response?
"Any attempt to impose sanctions will be considered an act of war"
United States backs down and decides to move troops in instead to "monitor"
Korea's response?
"Send troops here and we'll destroy you"
Basically, The States ain't gonna take on North Korea because they dont stand a chance. They only like to tell small countries that present zero threat what to do.
Hence Iraq is a bad man country yet India and Pakistan are not their problem.
It's funny to watch
Page: