The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,898544,00.html
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Page:
Cool. Thanks for posting that.
Where we differ substantially in our opinion is the question of Israel; if America were to threaten to withdraw the billions they provide in military hardware, and were the various states who back the PLO et al to do the same, then both sides would have no choice but to actually talk to each other (and if there's any justice, get rid of their respective leaders). Right now, the conflict in the Holy Land isn't a million miles away from the the conflicts that still scar Africa; 2 sides fighting a war by proxy and ensuring that people will die meaninglessly.
Where we differ substantially in our opinion is the question of Israel; if America were to threaten to withdraw the billions they provide in military hardware, and were the various states who back the PLO et al to do the same, then both sides would have no choice but to actually talk to each other (and if there's any justice, get rid of their respective leaders). Right now, the conflict in the Holy Land isn't a million miles away from the the conflicts that still scar Africa; 2 sides fighting a war by proxy and ensuring that people will die meaninglessly.
Light wrote:
>what is it that makes
> you think that Dubya et al's simplistic method of dealing with the
> middle east will do anything other that cause fundamentalist Islamic
> terrorism to proliferate?
I believe it is a case of America and its allies being backed into a corner. The UN - whose very creation was supposed to lead to peaceful resolutions - cannot be used to negotiate strongly with a nation like Iraq because is is not united, you have a definite pro and anti Iraq split, yet it is asked to make united decisions.
Saddam needs to be removed from power, if for no other reason that his continued presence will ensure continued sanctions.
A new Gulf conflict will create more terrorists, no doubt about that and I don't think any government has claimed otherwise.
In the case of the Palestinians you have a weak authority that cannot control it's own radicals and extremists, and with the Israelis you have a weak authority with military hardware, but whose lack of sucide bombing attacks makes them the safe bet to support.
It clearly is not the best way to deal with Iraq, and the palestinian / israeli questions, but it's the only way in teh case of Iraq that anything will get done. Despite what many think, I don't think any nation's leader wants this war, not even Bush, but they're being forced into it because everything else is not producing results fast enough, and you have other groups fanning the flames, like Hussein himself. He plays a game of brinkmanship, which pre 9/11 would have worked, but now ? Bad game plan.
There you have it, my opinion,
~~Belldandy~~
>what is it that makes
> you think that Dubya et al's simplistic method of dealing with the
> middle east will do anything other that cause fundamentalist Islamic
> terrorism to proliferate?
I believe it is a case of America and its allies being backed into a corner. The UN - whose very creation was supposed to lead to peaceful resolutions - cannot be used to negotiate strongly with a nation like Iraq because is is not united, you have a definite pro and anti Iraq split, yet it is asked to make united decisions.
Saddam needs to be removed from power, if for no other reason that his continued presence will ensure continued sanctions.
A new Gulf conflict will create more terrorists, no doubt about that and I don't think any government has claimed otherwise.
In the case of the Palestinians you have a weak authority that cannot control it's own radicals and extremists, and with the Israelis you have a weak authority with military hardware, but whose lack of sucide bombing attacks makes them the safe bet to support.
It clearly is not the best way to deal with Iraq, and the palestinian / israeli questions, but it's the only way in teh case of Iraq that anything will get done. Despite what many think, I don't think any nation's leader wants this war, not even Bush, but they're being forced into it because everything else is not producing results fast enough, and you have other groups fanning the flames, like Hussein himself. He plays a game of brinkmanship, which pre 9/11 would have worked, but now ? Bad game plan.
There you have it, my opinion,
~~Belldandy~~
Actually, in the interests of proving IB wrong...(oh come on; a contrary git like me can never resist that sort of post!)
Okay Bell; we can (and probably will) get digs at each other for the next few months if we so desire.
So here's the thing; you believe what you believe because you think it will stop another 9/11. I believe what I do for the very same reason. Your constant belittling of anyone who believes differently to you belies your claims of compassionate reasons for your beliefs. It just comes across like you haven't thought through what you've said. As I've already said, a sneering attitude riles me beyond belief, especially when used solely to avoid addressing arguments, and I personally react to it by fighting fire with fire. Though it's damn good fun a lot of the time, I would put it to you that the constant attempts to belittle everyone who isn't yourself ensure that no-one takes what you say seriously.
Now then; in the interests of getting back to actually debating without one of us being sarcastic to the other, what is it that makes you think that Dubya et al's simplistic method of dealing with the middle east will do anything other that cause fundamentalist Islamic terrorism to proliferate?
Okay Bell; we can (and probably will) get digs at each other for the next few months if we so desire.
So here's the thing; you believe what you believe because you think it will stop another 9/11. I believe what I do for the very same reason. Your constant belittling of anyone who believes differently to you belies your claims of compassionate reasons for your beliefs. It just comes across like you haven't thought through what you've said. As I've already said, a sneering attitude riles me beyond belief, especially when used solely to avoid addressing arguments, and I personally react to it by fighting fire with fire. Though it's damn good fun a lot of the time, I would put it to you that the constant attempts to belittle everyone who isn't yourself ensure that no-one takes what you say seriously.
Now then; in the interests of getting back to actually debating without one of us being sarcastic to the other, what is it that makes you think that Dubya et al's simplistic method of dealing with the middle east will do anything other that cause fundamentalist Islamic terrorism to proliferate?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> You guys have been slapping each other in the face with your
> respective manhoods for months.
>
Genius line there, IB. Nice one fella.
> You guys have been slapping each other in the face with your
> respective manhoods for months.
>
Genius line there, IB. Nice one fella.
For some reason, I'm tempted to connect XBOX lovers with "Shallow Hal"...
Yup IB, neither of us is going to back down anytime in the near future, possibly, or at least until a few decent Xbox games come out starting with Battle Engine Aquila next Friday :)
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
The irony is the two of you (Light and Bell) each calling the other infantile and foolish, and denying that the other is correct.
The truth is, you both are. Infantile and foolish that is.
Personally, I try to keep flame wars into less than the space of a few hours. You guys have been slapping each other in the face with your respective manhoods for months.
*chuckles*
The truth is, you both are. Infantile and foolish that is.
Personally, I try to keep flame wars into less than the space of a few hours. You guys have been slapping each other in the face with your respective manhoods for months.
*chuckles*
Light wrote:
> In other words Bell, can you answer anyone who picks holes in your
> theories, or will you switch to another topic and hope no-one notices?
> Judging by this thread, you've already answered me...
Rubbish, LL Cool T has made most of his posts going on about a bizarre N.Korea missile theory that even the US administration hasn't suggested, I want to know if ANYONE considers it credible, go on, answer that.
In your case Light, if you could ask questions without your own sneering then maybe you'd get an answer, as it is I see your name next to a post and usually skip past it, it's like you've got some kind of unhealthy fixation on me....
~~Belldandy~~
> In other words Bell, can you answer anyone who picks holes in your
> theories, or will you switch to another topic and hope no-one notices?
> Judging by this thread, you've already answered me...
Rubbish, LL Cool T has made most of his posts going on about a bizarre N.Korea missile theory that even the US administration hasn't suggested, I want to know if ANYONE considers it credible, go on, answer that.
In your case Light, if you could ask questions without your own sneering then maybe you'd get an answer, as it is I see your name next to a post and usually skip past it, it's like you've got some kind of unhealthy fixation on me....
~~Belldandy~~
Jonman;
I should really clarify myself. I'm by no means anti-american (I posted a fairly long rant to that effect a few weeks ago), but I am anti-The American Governtment, insofar as they are generally a corrupt gang of sociopathic moneywhores.
I'm gonna go down so well with my new neighbours in Boston...
I should really clarify myself. I'm by no means anti-american (I posted a fairly long rant to that effect a few weeks ago), but I am anti-The American Governtment, insofar as they are generally a corrupt gang of sociopathic moneywhores.
I'm gonna go down so well with my new neighbours in Boston...
Well, bearing in mind your increasingly desperate attempts to try and avoid answering anyone's queries, this would seem like a good time to restate my original question to you Bell. It's a lot less worthy than the questions asked of you by LL and Goatboy, but nevertheless...
Hey Belldandy, are you actually remotely capable of arguing a topic without insisting that any morality or concerns that differ from your own must therefore be false? I've lost count of the number of times that you've said "(you) don't REALLY care for them" or "...false moral high ground".
Once again, your egocentricity (your arguments are clearly constructed along the lines of "I believe this so therefore every right thinking person must think the same. Anyone who comes up with reasons why they don't agree with me must be wrong. If they have reasons that support that view, and I can't point out any flaws in those arguments, it therefore follows that they must be lying about those reasons.) comes to the fore. As I said, you reach your opinion and then look for supporting evidence rather than examining the evidence available before reaching your opinion.
Seriously, it's only one step from that to clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "Lalalalalala I can't hear you" whenever people disagree with you.
In other words Bell, can you answer anyone who picks holes in your theories, or will you switch to another topic and hope no-one notices? Judging by this thread, you've already answered me...
Hey Belldandy, are you actually remotely capable of arguing a topic without insisting that any morality or concerns that differ from your own must therefore be false? I've lost count of the number of times that you've said "(you) don't REALLY care for them" or "...false moral high ground".
Once again, your egocentricity (your arguments are clearly constructed along the lines of "I believe this so therefore every right thinking person must think the same. Anyone who comes up with reasons why they don't agree with me must be wrong. If they have reasons that support that view, and I can't point out any flaws in those arguments, it therefore follows that they must be lying about those reasons.) comes to the fore. As I said, you reach your opinion and then look for supporting evidence rather than examining the evidence available before reaching your opinion.
Seriously, it's only one step from that to clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "Lalalalalala I can't hear you" whenever people disagree with you.
In other words Bell, can you answer anyone who picks holes in your theories, or will you switch to another topic and hope no-one notices? Judging by this thread, you've already answered me...
Page: