The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As an apologist for Saddam/appeaser/supporter of terrorism I'll be attending Saturday's anti-war march. Due to tragic geographical circumstances I'll be protesting in Glasgow rather than London. In the papers this morning I read all about the line-ups:
London: blah blah....Ms Dynamite
Glasgow: blah blah....John Swinney
For those who've never heard of John Swinney: you are more lucky than you could ever know. He is no replacement for a gorgeous popstar. If I could ask for my money back, I would.
London: blah blah....Ms Dynamite
Glasgow: blah blah....John Swinney
For those who've never heard of John Swinney: you are more lucky than you could ever know. He is no replacement for a gorgeous popstar. If I could ask for my money back, I would.
Page:
I dont know about the whole war thing. It's very hard to come to your own conclusion about what should be done - especially when you *know* that there is no way we are being told everything. You have to look at everything you read and hear in a very cynical way to avoid being taken in, and so the things that are actually true get cut down by your lie-o-meter.
And I get the feeling that it is very fasionable to be anti-war.
And I get the feeling that it is very fasionable to be anti-war.
Belldandy wrote:
> And you know why ? Because people don't care, to you they're an
> example to be used and thats it.
I can't speak for Light but, in general, the anti-war movement contains many of the same people who protested against human rights abuses in Burma at the time western governments were still cutting trade deals with the junta. To say that people who happen to disagree with Bush's brutal form of imperialism are citing Burmese human right's abuses merely to score points is bs of the highest order.
If you want a real example of fake compassion for political gain then why not look at the way the pro-war camp constantly reminds us of Saddam's gas attacks? At the time this happened who protested? The political left did, and so did human rights groups. Donald Rumsfeld (who now wipes away a tear when he talks about the brutal repression of the Iraqi people) went and met Saddam with the latest copy of the US arms mail order catalogue.
> And you know why the tons and tons of
> oppressed people out there wil not be liberated ? Because to do so
> would invite the accusations of imperialism and colonialism. So
> instead they are condemned to remain as they are, because no one dares
> intervene.
Uh-huh. The West doesn't exactly have an impressive record when it comes to liberating people. Look at America's history in Latin America: plenty of wars and funding to get rid of democratic governments and replace them with dictatorships; not too many to get rid of dictatorships and replace them with democratic governments. The West has consistently dared to intervene, but it has never dared to liberate.
> And you know why ? Because people don't care, to you they're an
> example to be used and thats it.
I can't speak for Light but, in general, the anti-war movement contains many of the same people who protested against human rights abuses in Burma at the time western governments were still cutting trade deals with the junta. To say that people who happen to disagree with Bush's brutal form of imperialism are citing Burmese human right's abuses merely to score points is bs of the highest order.
If you want a real example of fake compassion for political gain then why not look at the way the pro-war camp constantly reminds us of Saddam's gas attacks? At the time this happened who protested? The political left did, and so did human rights groups. Donald Rumsfeld (who now wipes away a tear when he talks about the brutal repression of the Iraqi people) went and met Saddam with the latest copy of the US arms mail order catalogue.
> And you know why the tons and tons of
> oppressed people out there wil not be liberated ? Because to do so
> would invite the accusations of imperialism and colonialism. So
> instead they are condemned to remain as they are, because no one dares
> intervene.
Uh-huh. The West doesn't exactly have an impressive record when it comes to liberating people. Look at America's history in Latin America: plenty of wars and funding to get rid of democratic governments and replace them with dictatorships; not too many to get rid of dictatorships and replace them with democratic governments. The West has consistently dared to intervene, but it has never dared to liberate.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Oh I dunno, John Swinney with his comb over and glasses
>
> Oh yeah... SNP baby.
Actually, compared to Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney is one hell of a foxy nationalist.
> Oh I dunno, John Swinney with his comb over and glasses
>
> Oh yeah... SNP baby.
Actually, compared to Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney is one hell of a foxy nationalist.
Light wrote:
> You have a good point. However, as per the Sherlock Holmes theory of
> deduction, once you have removed the impossible then whatever remains,
> however implausible it may seem, is the answer. So, if we look at the
> other reasons for war...
But oil, in that reasoning, is only one of the many reasons left, and you still have no proof other than that of a fictional detective......
> The weapons of mass destruction: What about N. Korea threatening to
> nuke America? You say it's their 'trump card'; couldn't you say the
> same about Iraq?
N.Korea is saying stuff like that for their own domestic consumption. They won't, and they know it. Why ? Well, they could roll into S.Korea easily, but they'd have mere days to dig in before the inevitable, plus even Japan has now threatened N.Korea with pre emptive strikes if the country evn looks like it's gearing up for a launch. N.Korea is exploiting the fact the UN is just about finished, and hoping no one pays them attention. Itworked, for so long, but they've been caught out now.
> A breach of UN resolutions? Why hasn't Israel come under threat of
> invasion from the US?
Because the only countries, like Syria, who care about that do so for their vested self interest, Syria for example is not exactly known for good Israeli relations..... Fact is, we know Israel has WMD's, we know what, where e.t.c. We know how they will use them. They are hiding nothing. Iraq IS hiding something. Question is do we want to find out now, or later...
> The support of Al-Quaida? Bearing in mind they were trained by the CIA
> in the 80's, that is more than a little hypocritical. Also one should
> consider America's continued funding of right-wing Central American
> terrorists.
Bearing in mind that the CIA trained the mujahadeen, not Al Queda, and to fight Russians, not us. It's a crap argument, like saying that the UK couldn't attack Germany because we invented the first concentration camps. Which we did. So what about Central America ? Does it relate to this ? Er nope. Again, the proof for that is not exactly concrete, how come democractic nations can be guilty with little proof, and dictatorships innocent until concrete proof is found, or they kill a ton of people ? That's hypocritical. If America wishes to operate covert and proxy forces against various factions in Central America then so be it, we ourselves, along with every nation on this earth, have our own little sidelines in such activity.
> The liberation of the Iraqi people? I don't see the US exactly going
> out of their way to liberate, for example, the Karen people of Burma
> who are persecuted by the ruling junta. Or the people of Saudi Arabia.
> Or the starving millions of North Korea.
And you know why ? Because people don't care, to you they're an example to be used and thats it. N.Korea ? Are you serious ? Do tell how any politician can intervene their when N.Korea itself has said that such intervention is considered war. N.Korea thinks it has power, let them use that power to feed themselves and not mess around trying to stir up a new war front.... And you know why the tons and tons of oppressed people out there wil not be liberated ? Because to do so would invite the accusations of imperialism and colonialism. So instead they are condemned to remain as they are, because no one dares intervene.
> In law, the burden of proof is on the side asserting a fact. America
> asserts that Iraw harbours Al-Quaida terrorists. It is up to them to
> prove it. To say that they have failed to do so, even on balance of
> probabilities, is an understatement. They have convinced only those
> who supported them anyway.
Yes, they faked an Al Queda LT living in Baghdad ? Animatronic was it ? Or maybe CGI ? Get real....... Still, should have proof eventually, I'd imagine that guy is pretty high on the list of people to be extracted in any conflict....
> 'Valid reasons'? And what valid reasons does this dictatorship with a
> history of warring upon it's neighbours have?
The same valid reasons the anti war lobby says lets Iraq do what it wants ? How about massive power problems ? Exports and resources needed to generate electricity are at an all time low, N.Korea needs nuclear power to generate more power, out of interest how come you complain earlier about N.Korea's starving millions, then bemoan N.Korea wanting to provide more of them with electricity which would aid the situation.....
> No, I mean Israel. I'm not talking about the peace deal, I'm talking
> about the UN resolutions. Which are the same things that Iraq is
> finding itself in trouble for. The UN resolutions very clearly state
> that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. As to 'little
> choice', only if you see the continued system of apartheid in Israel
> as the only solution. Whilst I take your point that the Palestinians
> must also do their bit, the UN resolutions are not in force against
> them.
The UN resolutions ? No one care about them my friend. Who will make Israel comply ? No one. Iraq has succeeded, by clever manouevering, in relegating the UN, in fact I'd say after today that the UN's days may be numbered. The council, world opinion, and a lot more, is divided now into two sides who will not in all realism, agree. You want to see peace in the Middle East ? It'll take all the nations in the UN to do it, not half of them. After today I very much doubt you'll see co operation on anything like that. Why did Sharon get returned in Isreal ? The man's an idiot, his policis ineffective, but the Israeli people generally have no faith in the UN. No one has faith in the UN now. Failure after failure has littered the UN's history. Why believe in the UN ? It has the power, but not the will. America did criticise Israel more last year for it's military uses, but until Israel seriously believes the UN means business then forget it. Everyone wants peace, but when the very body meant to enforce peace cannot, war becomes a terrible choice to make, but a necessary one when others will not act decisively.
One thing that Bush has undeniably right is that the UN is just a debating society, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary, but it does not exist.
One ray of light (no pun intended today) was that both SKy, Fox, CNN and NBC all had seperate reports suggesting that, if an air war begins in Iraq, the leadership in Iraq will turn on Saddam. Other reports on the news today suggest that Saddam and around 19 other top brass are being left out of vital communications and plans. This can only be good for everyone.
~~Belldandy~~
> You have a good point. However, as per the Sherlock Holmes theory of
> deduction, once you have removed the impossible then whatever remains,
> however implausible it may seem, is the answer. So, if we look at the
> other reasons for war...
But oil, in that reasoning, is only one of the many reasons left, and you still have no proof other than that of a fictional detective......
> The weapons of mass destruction: What about N. Korea threatening to
> nuke America? You say it's their 'trump card'; couldn't you say the
> same about Iraq?
N.Korea is saying stuff like that for their own domestic consumption. They won't, and they know it. Why ? Well, they could roll into S.Korea easily, but they'd have mere days to dig in before the inevitable, plus even Japan has now threatened N.Korea with pre emptive strikes if the country evn looks like it's gearing up for a launch. N.Korea is exploiting the fact the UN is just about finished, and hoping no one pays them attention. Itworked, for so long, but they've been caught out now.
> A breach of UN resolutions? Why hasn't Israel come under threat of
> invasion from the US?
Because the only countries, like Syria, who care about that do so for their vested self interest, Syria for example is not exactly known for good Israeli relations..... Fact is, we know Israel has WMD's, we know what, where e.t.c. We know how they will use them. They are hiding nothing. Iraq IS hiding something. Question is do we want to find out now, or later...
> The support of Al-Quaida? Bearing in mind they were trained by the CIA
> in the 80's, that is more than a little hypocritical. Also one should
> consider America's continued funding of right-wing Central American
> terrorists.
Bearing in mind that the CIA trained the mujahadeen, not Al Queda, and to fight Russians, not us. It's a crap argument, like saying that the UK couldn't attack Germany because we invented the first concentration camps. Which we did. So what about Central America ? Does it relate to this ? Er nope. Again, the proof for that is not exactly concrete, how come democractic nations can be guilty with little proof, and dictatorships innocent until concrete proof is found, or they kill a ton of people ? That's hypocritical. If America wishes to operate covert and proxy forces against various factions in Central America then so be it, we ourselves, along with every nation on this earth, have our own little sidelines in such activity.
> The liberation of the Iraqi people? I don't see the US exactly going
> out of their way to liberate, for example, the Karen people of Burma
> who are persecuted by the ruling junta. Or the people of Saudi Arabia.
> Or the starving millions of North Korea.
And you know why ? Because people don't care, to you they're an example to be used and thats it. N.Korea ? Are you serious ? Do tell how any politician can intervene their when N.Korea itself has said that such intervention is considered war. N.Korea thinks it has power, let them use that power to feed themselves and not mess around trying to stir up a new war front.... And you know why the tons and tons of oppressed people out there wil not be liberated ? Because to do so would invite the accusations of imperialism and colonialism. So instead they are condemned to remain as they are, because no one dares intervene.
> In law, the burden of proof is on the side asserting a fact. America
> asserts that Iraw harbours Al-Quaida terrorists. It is up to them to
> prove it. To say that they have failed to do so, even on balance of
> probabilities, is an understatement. They have convinced only those
> who supported them anyway.
Yes, they faked an Al Queda LT living in Baghdad ? Animatronic was it ? Or maybe CGI ? Get real....... Still, should have proof eventually, I'd imagine that guy is pretty high on the list of people to be extracted in any conflict....
> 'Valid reasons'? And what valid reasons does this dictatorship with a
> history of warring upon it's neighbours have?
The same valid reasons the anti war lobby says lets Iraq do what it wants ? How about massive power problems ? Exports and resources needed to generate electricity are at an all time low, N.Korea needs nuclear power to generate more power, out of interest how come you complain earlier about N.Korea's starving millions, then bemoan N.Korea wanting to provide more of them with electricity which would aid the situation.....
> No, I mean Israel. I'm not talking about the peace deal, I'm talking
> about the UN resolutions. Which are the same things that Iraq is
> finding itself in trouble for. The UN resolutions very clearly state
> that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. As to 'little
> choice', only if you see the continued system of apartheid in Israel
> as the only solution. Whilst I take your point that the Palestinians
> must also do their bit, the UN resolutions are not in force against
> them.
The UN resolutions ? No one care about them my friend. Who will make Israel comply ? No one. Iraq has succeeded, by clever manouevering, in relegating the UN, in fact I'd say after today that the UN's days may be numbered. The council, world opinion, and a lot more, is divided now into two sides who will not in all realism, agree. You want to see peace in the Middle East ? It'll take all the nations in the UN to do it, not half of them. After today I very much doubt you'll see co operation on anything like that. Why did Sharon get returned in Isreal ? The man's an idiot, his policis ineffective, but the Israeli people generally have no faith in the UN. No one has faith in the UN now. Failure after failure has littered the UN's history. Why believe in the UN ? It has the power, but not the will. America did criticise Israel more last year for it's military uses, but until Israel seriously believes the UN means business then forget it. Everyone wants peace, but when the very body meant to enforce peace cannot, war becomes a terrible choice to make, but a necessary one when others will not act decisively.
One thing that Bush has undeniably right is that the UN is just a debating society, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary, but it does not exist.
One ray of light (no pun intended today) was that both SKy, Fox, CNN and NBC all had seperate reports suggesting that, if an air war begins in Iraq, the leadership in Iraq will turn on Saddam. Other reports on the news today suggest that Saddam and around 19 other top brass are being left out of vital communications and plans. This can only be good for everyone.
~~Belldandy~~
Oh I dunno, John Swinney with his comb over and glasses
Oh yeah... SNP baby.
Oh yeah... SNP baby.
HA!
I'm guessing that the people calling Ms Dynamite a minger would cream their pants if she came within six feet of them. Anyway, my point is that John Swinney is no substitute for a scantily clad young woman. Which is true.
I'm guessing that the people calling Ms Dynamite a minger would cream their pants if she came within six feet of them. Anyway, my point is that John Swinney is no substitute for a scantily clad young woman. Which is true.
No offence kernel, but I hope the wee neds are oot in force to sort you out. Not because your protesting against the war, but because you like miss dynamite. Well maybe because your protesting against the war a little bit, its something decent to watch on the news for a change, but mainly coz the miss dynamite thing.
AliBoy wrote:
> One point I would like to make is, What if we were badly attacked by
> Iraq in an incident similar to september 11th or found out that Iraq
> were involved with Bin Laden and 9/11.
>
> Would your view be the same?
---
A good point,except we haven't been and Iraq had nothing to do with that attack whatsoever.
It's only since Dubya got a hard-on for some shooting that the US has bothered to try and link Iraq with Al-Queda.
I personally find it odd that in the 17 months since the World Trade Center attack, it's only in the past month they've been trying to tie the two together.
> One point I would like to make is, What if we were badly attacked by
> Iraq in an incident similar to september 11th or found out that Iraq
> were involved with Bin Laden and 9/11.
>
> Would your view be the same?
---
A good point,except we haven't been and Iraq had nothing to do with that attack whatsoever.
It's only since Dubya got a hard-on for some shooting that the US has bothered to try and link Iraq with Al-Queda.
I personally find it odd that in the 17 months since the World Trade Center attack, it's only in the past month they've been trying to tie the two together.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> But I've yet to hear anyone come up
> with a reason for the coming war that dismisses the "Dubya
> wants
> Oil", "Al-Quaida have little or nothing to do with
> Iraq", or the "What about North Korea and Israel?"
> arguments against war.
>
> Well firstly I'd say that I want prood the war is for oil, other than
> the vague "Bush is a texan, texas=oil, texas=cowboy hat=on oil
> board=big business" kind of arguments. I mean hard proof, like
> that the anti war lobby demands of Iraq's breaches of 1441. Where is
> the hard proof that THIS IS all about oil ?
You have a good point. However, as per the Sherlock Holmes theory of deduction, once you have removed the impossible then whatever remains, however implausible it may seem, is the answer. So, if we look at the other reasons for war...
The weapons of mass destruction: What about N. Korea threatening to nuke America? You say it's their 'trump card'; couldn't you say the same about Iraq?
A breach of UN resolutions? Why hasn't Israel come under threat of invasion from the US?
The support of Al-Quaida? Bearing in mind they were trained by the CIA in the 80's, that is more than a little hypocritical. Also one should consider America's continued funding of right-wing Central American terrorists.
The liberation of the Iraqi people? I don't see the US exactly going out of their way to liberate, for example, the Karen people of Burma who are persecuted by the ruling junta. Or the people of Saudi Arabia. Or the starving millions of North Korea.
> Yes, this evidence could be fake, but
> prove it is faked.
In law, the burden of proof is on the side asserting a fact. America asserts that Iraw harbours Al-Quaida terrorists. It is up to them to prove it. To say that they have failed to do so, even on balance of probabilities, is an understatement. They have convinced only those who supported them anyway.
> North Korea ? N.Korea has requested the UK to mediate a non aggression
> treaty and has, possibly, valid reasons for wanting it's nuclear
> facilities online for power. There is no reason to force N.Korea into
> a conflict or to pursue it like Iraq. N.Korea is not a real threat,
> unlike Saddam.
'Valid reasons'? And what valid reasons does this dictatorship with a history of warring upon it's neighbours have? The same ones as Iraq (a dictatorship with a history of warring with it's neighbours)? N Korea is, unlike Iraq, still at war with another nation. And, unlike Iraq, it has threatened in the clearest terms to use it's weapons of mass destruction. So what, if you say you don't have something then we'll bomb you, but if we threaten to use it then we leave you alone?
> Israel ? You mean Israel and the Palestinians don't you....... takes
> two to make peace, not one.
No, I mean Israel. I'm not talking about the peace deal, I'm talking about the UN resolutions. Which are the same things that Iraq is finding itself in trouble for. The UN resolutions very clearly state that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. As to 'little choice', only if you see the continued system of apartheid in Israel as the only solution. Whilst I take your point that the Palestinians must also do their bit, the UN resolutions are not in force against them.
> Sorry if I keep replying ot al your posts Light, but thought I may as
> well offer some of what I know or believe....
Quite so, and thank you for doing so.
> Light wrote:
> But I've yet to hear anyone come up
> with a reason for the coming war that dismisses the "Dubya
> wants
> Oil", "Al-Quaida have little or nothing to do with
> Iraq", or the "What about North Korea and Israel?"
> arguments against war.
>
> Well firstly I'd say that I want prood the war is for oil, other than
> the vague "Bush is a texan, texas=oil, texas=cowboy hat=on oil
> board=big business" kind of arguments. I mean hard proof, like
> that the anti war lobby demands of Iraq's breaches of 1441. Where is
> the hard proof that THIS IS all about oil ?
You have a good point. However, as per the Sherlock Holmes theory of deduction, once you have removed the impossible then whatever remains, however implausible it may seem, is the answer. So, if we look at the other reasons for war...
The weapons of mass destruction: What about N. Korea threatening to nuke America? You say it's their 'trump card'; couldn't you say the same about Iraq?
A breach of UN resolutions? Why hasn't Israel come under threat of invasion from the US?
The support of Al-Quaida? Bearing in mind they were trained by the CIA in the 80's, that is more than a little hypocritical. Also one should consider America's continued funding of right-wing Central American terrorists.
The liberation of the Iraqi people? I don't see the US exactly going out of their way to liberate, for example, the Karen people of Burma who are persecuted by the ruling junta. Or the people of Saudi Arabia. Or the starving millions of North Korea.
> Yes, this evidence could be fake, but
> prove it is faked.
In law, the burden of proof is on the side asserting a fact. America asserts that Iraw harbours Al-Quaida terrorists. It is up to them to prove it. To say that they have failed to do so, even on balance of probabilities, is an understatement. They have convinced only those who supported them anyway.
> North Korea ? N.Korea has requested the UK to mediate a non aggression
> treaty and has, possibly, valid reasons for wanting it's nuclear
> facilities online for power. There is no reason to force N.Korea into
> a conflict or to pursue it like Iraq. N.Korea is not a real threat,
> unlike Saddam.
'Valid reasons'? And what valid reasons does this dictatorship with a history of warring upon it's neighbours have? The same ones as Iraq (a dictatorship with a history of warring with it's neighbours)? N Korea is, unlike Iraq, still at war with another nation. And, unlike Iraq, it has threatened in the clearest terms to use it's weapons of mass destruction. So what, if you say you don't have something then we'll bomb you, but if we threaten to use it then we leave you alone?
> Israel ? You mean Israel and the Palestinians don't you....... takes
> two to make peace, not one.
No, I mean Israel. I'm not talking about the peace deal, I'm talking about the UN resolutions. Which are the same things that Iraq is finding itself in trouble for. The UN resolutions very clearly state that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories. As to 'little choice', only if you see the continued system of apartheid in Israel as the only solution. Whilst I take your point that the Palestinians must also do their bit, the UN resolutions are not in force against them.
> Sorry if I keep replying ot al your posts Light, but thought I may as
> well offer some of what I know or believe....
Quite so, and thank you for doing so.
AliBoy wrote:
> One point I would like to make is, What if we were badly attacked by
> Iraq in an incident similar to september 11th or found out that Iraq
> were involved with Bin Laden and 9/11.
>
> Would your view be the same?
Yup, because in a War, we'll also end up kiolling innocent civilians, that's why I changed my mind about joing the RAFFA's. I'm a pacifist. Unless provoked dearly. With a hockey stick. Then the rest stay well pacifist towards me. As metal baseball bats are scary. I am good. At English. I know that. I should put in. Full Stops. So I. Do. Comma.
> One point I would like to make is, What if we were badly attacked by
> Iraq in an incident similar to september 11th or found out that Iraq
> were involved with Bin Laden and 9/11.
>
> Would your view be the same?
Yup, because in a War, we'll also end up kiolling innocent civilians, that's why I changed my mind about joing the RAFFA's. I'm a pacifist. Unless provoked dearly. With a hockey stick. Then the rest stay well pacifist towards me. As metal baseball bats are scary. I am good. At English. I know that. I should put in. Full Stops. So I. Do. Comma.
Page: