The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central
> Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the
> North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly
> telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north
> should be no problem...
Wait a second, what about those camps in Indonesia? What about the cells stationed in Hamburg, Rome, Florence and even those on Britain and America? The cells which various intelligence agencies have information on and could easily be shut down? You only seem to be concentrating on the easiest target, Iraq, which knows that it cannot really defend itself. Pick on the little guy while ignoring all the other problems in the world, is that it? Of course it is. Everyone knows how evil Saddam is, so don't think that you're the greatest because you know what Saddam's like. But that doesn't seem to be on the American's agenda lately. The American stance has changed over the weeks leading up to the inevitable first strike by America on Iraq - it's only recently that they've decided it's a moral decision to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to try and establish a puppet governemnt in Iraq, which they have already admitted that they will.
> Because, surprise surprise, it's rather stuoidly easy to destroy what
> you know is present. We supplied that stuff, and made a point of
> keeping track of it so that when the war ended we finished it off.
> Problem is Iraaq has it's own stuff, made since 1998 and prior to
> that, as you well know, including the new long range missile and the
> bio agents Iraq itself admits it cannot find. If an American lab loses
> one vial of an agent it's cause for mass concern there, but Iraq ?
> Well damn me if it can't lose whole gallons of agents and it has
> people defending it !
I've got to give it to you Belldandy, that's one hell of a way of defending all the Western companies who sold these weapons and agents to Iraq! Sell them these weapons so we can destroy them later! What a FANTASTIC idea, and think of all the benefits for all concerned! (Note to Belldandy: SARCASM) Explain for us all, Belldandy, exactly why we would sell these weapons to Iraq if we were only going to destroy them at a later date? Are you trying to take the Iraqis for fools? I doubt it, but if they were, this would come back to the issue of respect for others. However, a far more likely reason is that the governments of both Britain and America were shown up as being incumbent in trying to control their corporations, and so they sent out a message rather similar to yours to make it seem as though they knew all the time. Why would we let this alleged rogue nation have weapons of any kind? Is it because every nation has the right to defend itself? But America wants to take this right away from Iraq so they can control the oil there, or whatever they say it is. Iraq is dangerous, and so shouldn't have any WOMDs, but this method of defending our companies selling these weapons to Iraq is woeful in every sense.
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking....
> why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going
> wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole
> country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should
> inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
You've quite a gift for satire, I can see.
Earlier you said that I was a moron for believing that North Korea could sell its Taepondong II missile. Why do you say this? Yet another pre-emptive strike really, wasn't it? North Korea's more than willing to sell, and there are terrorists who definitely want to buy. North Korea is starving, and will do anything it can for money of some sort. There are definitely some groups who would sacrifice entire squads of their 'troops' to get their hands on this long-range missile, so the threat is there. And yet you call me a moron? Relate that to the last quoted paragraph of yours, and try to learn something, mate.
--bWo--
> Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central
> Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the
> North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly
> telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north
> should be no problem...
Wait a second, what about those camps in Indonesia? What about the cells stationed in Hamburg, Rome, Florence and even those on Britain and America? The cells which various intelligence agencies have information on and could easily be shut down? You only seem to be concentrating on the easiest target, Iraq, which knows that it cannot really defend itself. Pick on the little guy while ignoring all the other problems in the world, is that it? Of course it is. Everyone knows how evil Saddam is, so don't think that you're the greatest because you know what Saddam's like. But that doesn't seem to be on the American's agenda lately. The American stance has changed over the weeks leading up to the inevitable first strike by America on Iraq - it's only recently that they've decided it's a moral decision to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to try and establish a puppet governemnt in Iraq, which they have already admitted that they will.
> Because, surprise surprise, it's rather stuoidly easy to destroy what
> you know is present. We supplied that stuff, and made a point of
> keeping track of it so that when the war ended we finished it off.
> Problem is Iraaq has it's own stuff, made since 1998 and prior to
> that, as you well know, including the new long range missile and the
> bio agents Iraq itself admits it cannot find. If an American lab loses
> one vial of an agent it's cause for mass concern there, but Iraq ?
> Well damn me if it can't lose whole gallons of agents and it has
> people defending it !
I've got to give it to you Belldandy, that's one hell of a way of defending all the Western companies who sold these weapons and agents to Iraq! Sell them these weapons so we can destroy them later! What a FANTASTIC idea, and think of all the benefits for all concerned! (Note to Belldandy: SARCASM) Explain for us all, Belldandy, exactly why we would sell these weapons to Iraq if we were only going to destroy them at a later date? Are you trying to take the Iraqis for fools? I doubt it, but if they were, this would come back to the issue of respect for others. However, a far more likely reason is that the governments of both Britain and America were shown up as being incumbent in trying to control their corporations, and so they sent out a message rather similar to yours to make it seem as though they knew all the time. Why would we let this alleged rogue nation have weapons of any kind? Is it because every nation has the right to defend itself? But America wants to take this right away from Iraq so they can control the oil there, or whatever they say it is. Iraq is dangerous, and so shouldn't have any WOMDs, but this method of defending our companies selling these weapons to Iraq is woeful in every sense.
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking....
> why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going
> wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole
> country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should
> inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
You've quite a gift for satire, I can see.
Earlier you said that I was a moron for believing that North Korea could sell its Taepondong II missile. Why do you say this? Yet another pre-emptive strike really, wasn't it? North Korea's more than willing to sell, and there are terrorists who definitely want to buy. North Korea is starving, and will do anything it can for money of some sort. There are definitely some groups who would sacrifice entire squads of their 'troops' to get their hands on this long-range missile, so the threat is there. And yet you call me a moron? Relate that to the last quoted paragraph of yours, and try to learn something, mate.
--bWo--
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central
> Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the
> North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly
> telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north
> should be no problem...
This is an article I read about Colin Powell's 'damning' presentation on this subject:
"Evidence about Iraq and al-Qaeda
The weakest part of the whole presentation, and the most important, was the claims trying to link Iraq with al-Qaeda operations. In the past, the link depended on the claims about one man, Mohammed Atta, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (we've since found out that he was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting); now it depends on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Al-Zarqawi is apparently a high-level operative of an Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is operating in northern Iraq (currently an autonomous region with a provisional Kurdish government that is aligned with the United States). Although there is no evident link between this organization and the Government of Iraq (GOI), Powell claims that the GOI has a high-level agent in Ansar, who "offered al-Qaida safe haven" - although apparently few if any accepted the offer, since the supposed presence is in the part of Iraq not controlled by the GOI. The full extent of the connection between al-Zarqawi himself and the GOI is apparently that he got medical care in a hospital in Baghdad, hardly an indication of high-level Iraqi complicity in terrorist attacks against American targets.
There is no attempt to link Ansar itself to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, while apparently the mere presence of al-Zarqawi, a subordinate in Ansar, in Iraq is sufficient reason for war, the head of Ansar, known as Mullah Krekar, is living unmolested in Norway, and the United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda."
So by rights we should be attacking Norway first, then Iraq.
The rest of the article is at www.zmag.org/content/ showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2980
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking
Arf!
> Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central
> Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the
> North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly
> telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north
> should be no problem...
This is an article I read about Colin Powell's 'damning' presentation on this subject:
"Evidence about Iraq and al-Qaeda
The weakest part of the whole presentation, and the most important, was the claims trying to link Iraq with al-Qaeda operations. In the past, the link depended on the claims about one man, Mohammed Atta, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (we've since found out that he was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting); now it depends on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Al-Zarqawi is apparently a high-level operative of an Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is operating in northern Iraq (currently an autonomous region with a provisional Kurdish government that is aligned with the United States). Although there is no evident link between this organization and the Government of Iraq (GOI), Powell claims that the GOI has a high-level agent in Ansar, who "offered al-Qaida safe haven" - although apparently few if any accepted the offer, since the supposed presence is in the part of Iraq not controlled by the GOI. The full extent of the connection between al-Zarqawi himself and the GOI is apparently that he got medical care in a hospital in Baghdad, hardly an indication of high-level Iraqi complicity in terrorist attacks against American targets.
There is no attempt to link Ansar itself to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, while apparently the mere presence of al-Zarqawi, a subordinate in Ansar, in Iraq is sufficient reason for war, the head of Ansar, known as Mullah Krekar, is living unmolested in Norway, and the United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda."
So by rights we should be attacking Norway first, then Iraq.
The rest of the article is at www.zmag.org/content/ showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2980
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking
Arf!
Belldandy wrote:
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking....
> why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going
> wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole
> country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should
> inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
--
Irony on a base level but it's a hoot.
> Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and
> anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking....
> why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going
> wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole
> country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should
> inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
--
Irony on a base level but it's a hoot.
Light wrote:
> 1) So you're still in the business of making a statement and expecting
> people to accept as the truth without any convincing evidence?
Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north should be no problem...
> 2) So...will the US and UK be making efforts to flush out the
> terrorist organisations that they fund?
Why, where is your convincing evidence to this ? My above statement is supported by a UN presentation and intel made public from about 5 agencies, where's yours from ? Oh, you didn't say...
> 3) If the weapons were destroyed, why were the inspectors kicked out
> in the first place, and why are they back? If you're going to be self
> important about this, at least develop some consistent logic
Because, surprise surprise, it's rather stuoidly easy to destroy what you know is present. We supplied that stuff, and made a point of keeping track of it so that when the war ended we finished it off. Problem is Iraaq has it's own stuff, made since 1998 and prior to that, as you well know, including the new long range missile and the bio agents Iraq itself admits it cannot find. If an American lab loses one vial of an agent it's cause for mass concern there, but Iraq ? Well damn me if it can't lose whole gallons of agents and it has people defending it !
> I was going to write more, but your stretching of the facts to
> breaking point in order to desperately try and prove that you're not
> wrong, rather than debating to try and learn from the points of view
> of others, is getting boring.
Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking.... why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
~~Belldandy~~
> 1) So you're still in the business of making a statement and expecting
> people to accept as the truth without any convincing evidence?
Erm hello ? *taps on Light's head* Al Queda Lt living in central Baghdad with no attempt to remove him ? Various training camps in the North which Saddam has made no attempt to remove ? He's constantly telling everyone how his army can kick so those in the north should be no problem...
> 2) So...will the US and UK be making efforts to flush out the
> terrorist organisations that they fund?
Why, where is your convincing evidence to this ? My above statement is supported by a UN presentation and intel made public from about 5 agencies, where's yours from ? Oh, you didn't say...
> 3) If the weapons were destroyed, why were the inspectors kicked out
> in the first place, and why are they back? If you're going to be self
> important about this, at least develop some consistent logic
Because, surprise surprise, it's rather stuoidly easy to destroy what you know is present. We supplied that stuff, and made a point of keeping track of it so that when the war ended we finished it off. Problem is Iraaq has it's own stuff, made since 1998 and prior to that, as you well know, including the new long range missile and the bio agents Iraq itself admits it cannot find. If an American lab loses one vial of an agent it's cause for mass concern there, but Iraq ? Well damn me if it can't lose whole gallons of agents and it has people defending it !
> I was going to write more, but your stretching of the facts to
> breaking point in order to desperately try and prove that you're not
> wrong, rather than debating to try and learn from the points of view
> of others, is getting boring.
Because your idea of debating, Light, is everyone listen to you and anyone else is wrong and should bow down to your rightful thinking.... why don't you go write some books eh ? Tell us all how we're going wrong ? In fact, run for Prime Minister then you can tell the whole country, and every other country, how they're going wrong. Should inspire about a million new terrorist movements overnight.....
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
>
> 1) Iraq is supporting terrorism and harbouring Al Queda cell members
> 2) Iraq has had 12 years to sort this, whereas Syria and Iran know
> full well where they stand and are making attempts to flush out
> terrorism in their countries, N.Korea has asked for the UK to mediate
> between it and the US for a peaceful solution and has made no attempt
> to hide what it is doing. War is the last option, not the first,
> something you don't seem to grasp from the way you suggest attacking
> other countries...
> 3 ) The weapons were sold in the early 80's, and destroyed during and
> following the Gulf War, so sod that argument, while your at it the
> Chinese have been quite active in that field, as have France, Germany
> and Russia in doing deals for oil, the French have experience of this
> dating back to the 1970's.
>
1) So you're still in the business of making a statement and expecting people to accept as the truth without any convincing evidence?
2) So...will the US and UK be making efforts to flush out the terrorist organisations that they fund?
3) If the weapons were destroyed, why were the inspectors kicked out in the first place, and why are they back? If you're going to be self important about this, at least develop some consistent logic
I was going to write more, but your stretching of the facts to breaking point in order to desperately try and prove that you're not wrong, rather than debating to try and learn from the points of view of others, is getting boring.
>
> 1) Iraq is supporting terrorism and harbouring Al Queda cell members
> 2) Iraq has had 12 years to sort this, whereas Syria and Iran know
> full well where they stand and are making attempts to flush out
> terrorism in their countries, N.Korea has asked for the UK to mediate
> between it and the US for a peaceful solution and has made no attempt
> to hide what it is doing. War is the last option, not the first,
> something you don't seem to grasp from the way you suggest attacking
> other countries...
> 3 ) The weapons were sold in the early 80's, and destroyed during and
> following the Gulf War, so sod that argument, while your at it the
> Chinese have been quite active in that field, as have France, Germany
> and Russia in doing deals for oil, the French have experience of this
> dating back to the 1970's.
>
1) So you're still in the business of making a statement and expecting people to accept as the truth without any convincing evidence?
2) So...will the US and UK be making efforts to flush out the terrorist organisations that they fund?
3) If the weapons were destroyed, why were the inspectors kicked out in the first place, and why are they back? If you're going to be self important about this, at least develop some consistent logic
I was going to write more, but your stretching of the facts to breaking point in order to desperately try and prove that you're not wrong, rather than debating to try and learn from the points of view of others, is getting boring.
Bwah ha ha ha...self important, deluded, pedantic, AND defensive. All in one post Bell; really, I've got no need to keep having digs at you when you make humour-free posts of such delightful egocentricity.
Heh heh heh...man, if you're so brilliant then how come you're not writing books on political theory?
Oh, and how come you still haven't answered the original point about your telling people that they don't really care about the people of Iraq as your only response to the multitude of arguments against the chimpanzee's war for oil?
Heh heh heh...man, if you're so brilliant then how come you're not writing books on political theory?
Oh, and how come you still haven't answered the original point about your telling people that they don't really care about the people of Iraq as your only response to the multitude of arguments against the chimpanzee's war for oil?
LL CóòL †† wrote:
> Quite funny then, isn't it, that America is seemingly unable to solve
> this problem, which is destroying populations of people in Africa, but
> can easily strike a country (pre-emptively, might I add) which is
> unable to attack the US. It's excuse (and yours, no doubt) is that
> Iraq will be able to supply terrorists with dangerous materials, used
> to create weapons which will be used to attack America. But hold your
> horses, cowboy, what about Syria? What about Iran? What about North
> Korea? What about every other country in the world that is
> anti-American? And while we're at it, what about the numerous
> American and British companies who have been selling various things to
> Iraq and other 'rogue nations'?
Ah, the usual....
1) Iraq is supporting terrorism and harbouring Al Queda cell members
2) Iraq has had 12 years to sort this, whereas Syria and Iran know full well where they stand and are making attempts to flush out terrorism in their countries, N.Korea has asked for the UK to mediate between it and the US for a peaceful solution and has made no attempt to hide what it is doing. War is the last option, not the first, something you don't seem to grasp from the way you suggest attacking other countries...
3 ) The weapons were sold in the early 80's, and destroyed during and following the Gulf War, so sod that argument, while your at it the Chinese have been quite active in that field, as have France, Germany and Russia in doing deals for oil, the French have experience of this dating back to the 1970's.
>If the Americans want to start
> clearing up the world as they seem to want to do, then I believe, and
> this may be a bit weird or stupid, that perhaps they should go about
> it in as peaceful a way as possible. Your point about the US being
> exempt from prosecution is, sadly, another capitalist hallmark.
> They're buying their way out of being found out for committing
> anything that may be against the international laws that they are
> supposed to uphold.
Buying their way out ? Okay if thats what you want to think, the truth is that without the US there is no UN, and it is the UN's fault that is the situation. America, and its allies, have tried peace, and found that after 12 years it gets nowhere, peace is not just the fact you haven't seen a challenger tank on tv or smartbomb pictures for a while....Time is up. Fact is that there are many many groups out there that have no stake in peace, with peace they are nothing, nobodies. They need conflict to make them what they are, so there is only one way you can stop them, and it's not a UN resolution.
> why do they
> want to start a programme of 'regime change' in Iraq? This excuse
> that Iraq will start giving weapons to terrorists is quite poor,
> seeing as every other nation in the world could do this. And don't
> start giving us that spiel of Iraq being more likely to sell the
> weapons to the terrorists - have you seen North Korea lately? This is
> nation that America should be fearing - the Taepondong II missile, if
> sold to terrorists, could be fired from about 3000km away from the
> target and would be devastating. The N. Koreans are the true dangers
> here, and yet your friend Dubya wants to finish Daddy's dirty work.
Because N.Korea could not sell that, you're a total moron if you think they could. N.Korea is not the threat, because they have as much to lose from war as us. The WMD's to be feared are not those that would show up on a military satelitte like a sore thumb....how about the mass pile of chemical and biological agents Iraq has "lost", but hey, it's only anthrax, weaponised ebola, so who cares right ? Ebola, in aerosol form, could be sprayed with a normal sprayer like people use for house plants, in somewhere like Meadowhall Shopping Centre on a Saturday, and you'd have thousands dead before we even figured out where it originated. Those are the weapons to fear, not bl$$dy great missile launchers.
> It would be nice for America to at least review its foreign policy as
> it seems to be quite the pesky doctrine.
Only for certain people.
> Much as this shouldn't be the case, the UN has indeed become a talking
> shop. But why? Has it got anything to do with it being abused by
> numerous countries, including America?
Maybe it is the fact it doesn't work, and doesn't back words with action ? Why has Iraq strung out this whole thing for 12 years ? Because all the UN does is issue sanctions which serve Saddam's interests by hurting Iraqi people and not him.
>If the UN is just
> the talking shop we all view it as being, then the bigger powers in
> the world should surely be showing the rest of the world that it is
> more than the pathetic body it is seen as today.
Thats what America and others are trying to do right now. Everyone signing 1441 knew what it meant, and implied. Breach = attack. Now certain nations are backing down, and its left to a select few to enforce that resolution with more than paper and words.
> They're
> extremists and so will not be pleased with what America does anyway,
> but look at other nations and people that have problems with the US.
> Just a little respect for others would enhance their views of America
> no end.
In a perfect world that so many here belive in, this would be true, however the reality is that the hatred will take generations to destroy, and we don't have that long to destroy the threats facing us right now.
~~Belldandy~~
> Quite funny then, isn't it, that America is seemingly unable to solve
> this problem, which is destroying populations of people in Africa, but
> can easily strike a country (pre-emptively, might I add) which is
> unable to attack the US. It's excuse (and yours, no doubt) is that
> Iraq will be able to supply terrorists with dangerous materials, used
> to create weapons which will be used to attack America. But hold your
> horses, cowboy, what about Syria? What about Iran? What about North
> Korea? What about every other country in the world that is
> anti-American? And while we're at it, what about the numerous
> American and British companies who have been selling various things to
> Iraq and other 'rogue nations'?
Ah, the usual....
1) Iraq is supporting terrorism and harbouring Al Queda cell members
2) Iraq has had 12 years to sort this, whereas Syria and Iran know full well where they stand and are making attempts to flush out terrorism in their countries, N.Korea has asked for the UK to mediate between it and the US for a peaceful solution and has made no attempt to hide what it is doing. War is the last option, not the first, something you don't seem to grasp from the way you suggest attacking other countries...
3 ) The weapons were sold in the early 80's, and destroyed during and following the Gulf War, so sod that argument, while your at it the Chinese have been quite active in that field, as have France, Germany and Russia in doing deals for oil, the French have experience of this dating back to the 1970's.
>If the Americans want to start
> clearing up the world as they seem to want to do, then I believe, and
> this may be a bit weird or stupid, that perhaps they should go about
> it in as peaceful a way as possible. Your point about the US being
> exempt from prosecution is, sadly, another capitalist hallmark.
> They're buying their way out of being found out for committing
> anything that may be against the international laws that they are
> supposed to uphold.
Buying their way out ? Okay if thats what you want to think, the truth is that without the US there is no UN, and it is the UN's fault that is the situation. America, and its allies, have tried peace, and found that after 12 years it gets nowhere, peace is not just the fact you haven't seen a challenger tank on tv or smartbomb pictures for a while....Time is up. Fact is that there are many many groups out there that have no stake in peace, with peace they are nothing, nobodies. They need conflict to make them what they are, so there is only one way you can stop them, and it's not a UN resolution.
> why do they
> want to start a programme of 'regime change' in Iraq? This excuse
> that Iraq will start giving weapons to terrorists is quite poor,
> seeing as every other nation in the world could do this. And don't
> start giving us that spiel of Iraq being more likely to sell the
> weapons to the terrorists - have you seen North Korea lately? This is
> nation that America should be fearing - the Taepondong II missile, if
> sold to terrorists, could be fired from about 3000km away from the
> target and would be devastating. The N. Koreans are the true dangers
> here, and yet your friend Dubya wants to finish Daddy's dirty work.
Because N.Korea could not sell that, you're a total moron if you think they could. N.Korea is not the threat, because they have as much to lose from war as us. The WMD's to be feared are not those that would show up on a military satelitte like a sore thumb....how about the mass pile of chemical and biological agents Iraq has "lost", but hey, it's only anthrax, weaponised ebola, so who cares right ? Ebola, in aerosol form, could be sprayed with a normal sprayer like people use for house plants, in somewhere like Meadowhall Shopping Centre on a Saturday, and you'd have thousands dead before we even figured out where it originated. Those are the weapons to fear, not bl$$dy great missile launchers.
> It would be nice for America to at least review its foreign policy as
> it seems to be quite the pesky doctrine.
Only for certain people.
> Much as this shouldn't be the case, the UN has indeed become a talking
> shop. But why? Has it got anything to do with it being abused by
> numerous countries, including America?
Maybe it is the fact it doesn't work, and doesn't back words with action ? Why has Iraq strung out this whole thing for 12 years ? Because all the UN does is issue sanctions which serve Saddam's interests by hurting Iraqi people and not him.
>If the UN is just
> the talking shop we all view it as being, then the bigger powers in
> the world should surely be showing the rest of the world that it is
> more than the pathetic body it is seen as today.
Thats what America and others are trying to do right now. Everyone signing 1441 knew what it meant, and implied. Breach = attack. Now certain nations are backing down, and its left to a select few to enforce that resolution with more than paper and words.
> They're
> extremists and so will not be pleased with what America does anyway,
> but look at other nations and people that have problems with the US.
> Just a little respect for others would enhance their views of America
> no end.
In a perfect world that so many here belive in, this would be true, however the reality is that the hatred will take generations to destroy, and we don't have that long to destroy the threats facing us right now.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> No, it's a damn good point. Who does nearly everyone look to to sort
> their problems out, America. It's not cowardly you idiot, it's the
> truth. Whjy did the USA get concessions from the UN letting US service
> personnel be exempt from prosecution during peacekeeping ? Because
> America supplies most of the personnel and equipment.
Quite funny then, isn't it, that America is seemingly unable to solve this problem, which is destroying populations of people in Africa, but can easily strike a country (pre-emptively, might I add) which is unable to attack the US. It's excuse (and yours, no doubt) is that Iraq will be able to supply terrorists with dangerous materials, used to create weapons which will be used to attack America. But hold your horses, cowboy, what about Syria? What about Iran? What about North Korea? What about every other country in the world that is anti-American? And while we're at it, what about the numerous American and British companies who have been selling various things to Iraq and other 'rogue nations'? If the Americans want to start clearing up the world as they seem to want to do, then I believe, and this may be a bit weird or stupid, that perhaps they should go about it in as peaceful a way as possible. Your point about the US being exempt from prosecution is, sadly, another capitalist hallmark. They're buying their way out of being found out for committing anything that may be against the international laws that they are supposed to uphold.
> Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ? Anyhow, it is
> not refusing to give them the drugs, it is simply saying that
> governments must be able to buy what they want. Many of the countries
> requiring these drugs seem to have money to spare for their own
> leaders and military, yet want aid for the 'people'. In addition, in
> the case of AIDS/HIV, many nations in Africa have failed to implement
> the kind of controls and public health education programs needed to
> halt the spread of the disease - as the report out this morning
> highlights flawed medical practices.
'Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ?' I don't see how being British makes me any better than anyone else at the moment, so I can't adopt that American-created point of view. The excuse you give (and let's face facts, Belldandy, it's not a reason) yet again comes back to America's laughable policies. If they are saying that the governments must be able to buy what they need for their people, then why doesn't America 'help' them? Before you refer to the world wanting America to sort out it's problems, why do they want to start a programme of 'regime change' in Iraq? This excuse that Iraq will start giving weapons to terrorists is quite poor, seeing as every other nation in the world could do this. And don't start giving us that spiel of Iraq being more likely to sell the weapons to the terrorists - have you seen North Korea lately? This is nation that America should be fearing - the Taepondong II missile, if sold to terrorists, could be fired from about 3000km away from the target and would be devastating. The N. Koreans are the true dangers here, and yet your friend Dubya wants to finish Daddy's dirty work.
> Money to spare ? There is not a nation on this earth not in debt or
> which has significant budget deficits. And why, proving my earlier
> point, does the American government have to fund those companies ? The
> whole point of drugs companies being privately owned is to let them
> compete and get on with their tasks, you start puring government money
> in and the whole competition angle dies. Money is not wasted on a war,
> in a sense that war is always the last option and has specific
> objective in mind. Neither government could afford to do what you say,
> you're pretty clueless on the sums that would involve.
Hang on, why does there have to be competition between the drugs companies? And why can't the government subsidise it? I understand that there should be something spurring these companies to work faster to make these innoculations, but what's there to prevent the government helping the companies equally. You don't eliminate the competition, and you help out those in need, crucially. Call me naive, but I don't see why people should die because of money. And you're right, I've no idea of the amounts needed to fund this, but unless you're directly handling this I'd say that you haven't either, Belldandy.
> Here you actually have the crux of the whole problem, the British
> government would not withhold such a thing from it's own people
> because to do so would mean an end to that government. As it is the
> MOD is still just testing the vaccine for bubonic plague and hasn't
> even let its own soldiers have it, it still is not a cure for those
> infected by it anyway... In other words it is the primary
> responsibility of a country's government to provide for it's citizens,
> if it can't then it can get help at the cost of sticking to IMF / WB
> conformities like SAP's.
> But the problem is not America's, either you want America to be akin
> to the UN, or you want America to stop being an intefering capitalist
> aggressor....
It would be nice for America to at least review its foreign policy as it seems to be quite the pesky doctrine.
> >The problem's solution has to be found somewhere,
> and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a
> terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to
> finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that
> needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of
> global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as
> you suggest that it might.
>
> At one point in time, America could have done this, but now, with
> rising anti-western, anti-american feeling, you can forget it, It's
> not interested and neither are most of its allies. any attempt by any
> western coountry to intervene where they should, simply provokes
> angered responses in their own country, in other countries, and from
> the place itself. Too many nations and people have spent the past 50
> years telling America and many others where to get off, so guess what
> ? Their wish is our command. A strong UN could have prented this,
> instead you have a talking shop with no real power or will.
Much as this shouldn't be the case, the UN has indeed become a talking shop. But why? Has it got anything to do with it being abused by numerous countries, including America? The US isn't the only nation at fault here, but it has played a lot in the destruction of the UN's credibility. America just seems to expect the UN and all its members to follow whatever ideas it has. Take this stupid Iraq situation - America (followed by its lapdog, the UK) has threatened to ignore the UN's ruling and 'go it alone', to use one of Dunya's pet phrases. Does this make the UN seem like a true ruling body? If the UN is just the talking shop we all view it as being, then the bigger powers in the world should surely be showing the rest of the world that it is more than the pathetic body it is seen as today.
> Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you
> believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
I take it you refuse to listen to those that criticise America. If this is the case, you really shouldn't - a lot of hard-hitting information could show you where America is going wrong. America frequently displays itself as being out for itself, which is fine, but accompanies this with a total lack of morals or respect for those that it comes into contact with. Why do Al-Qa'eda detest America? A lot of reasons, but look closely at them and you'll see that they basically come down lack of respect for Muslims and Islam. They're extremists and so will not be pleased with what America does anyway, but look at other nations and people that have problems with the US. Just a little respect for others would enhance their views of America no end.
--bWo--
> No, it's a damn good point. Who does nearly everyone look to to sort
> their problems out, America. It's not cowardly you idiot, it's the
> truth. Whjy did the USA get concessions from the UN letting US service
> personnel be exempt from prosecution during peacekeeping ? Because
> America supplies most of the personnel and equipment.
Quite funny then, isn't it, that America is seemingly unable to solve this problem, which is destroying populations of people in Africa, but can easily strike a country (pre-emptively, might I add) which is unable to attack the US. It's excuse (and yours, no doubt) is that Iraq will be able to supply terrorists with dangerous materials, used to create weapons which will be used to attack America. But hold your horses, cowboy, what about Syria? What about Iran? What about North Korea? What about every other country in the world that is anti-American? And while we're at it, what about the numerous American and British companies who have been selling various things to Iraq and other 'rogue nations'? If the Americans want to start clearing up the world as they seem to want to do, then I believe, and this may be a bit weird or stupid, that perhaps they should go about it in as peaceful a way as possible. Your point about the US being exempt from prosecution is, sadly, another capitalist hallmark. They're buying their way out of being found out for committing anything that may be against the international laws that they are supposed to uphold.
> Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ? Anyhow, it is
> not refusing to give them the drugs, it is simply saying that
> governments must be able to buy what they want. Many of the countries
> requiring these drugs seem to have money to spare for their own
> leaders and military, yet want aid for the 'people'. In addition, in
> the case of AIDS/HIV, many nations in Africa have failed to implement
> the kind of controls and public health education programs needed to
> halt the spread of the disease - as the report out this morning
> highlights flawed medical practices.
'Well I'm British so better change that stance thing eh ?' I don't see how being British makes me any better than anyone else at the moment, so I can't adopt that American-created point of view. The excuse you give (and let's face facts, Belldandy, it's not a reason) yet again comes back to America's laughable policies. If they are saying that the governments must be able to buy what they need for their people, then why doesn't America 'help' them? Before you refer to the world wanting America to sort out it's problems, why do they want to start a programme of 'regime change' in Iraq? This excuse that Iraq will start giving weapons to terrorists is quite poor, seeing as every other nation in the world could do this. And don't start giving us that spiel of Iraq being more likely to sell the weapons to the terrorists - have you seen North Korea lately? This is nation that America should be fearing - the Taepondong II missile, if sold to terrorists, could be fired from about 3000km away from the target and would be devastating. The N. Koreans are the true dangers here, and yet your friend Dubya wants to finish Daddy's dirty work.
> Money to spare ? There is not a nation on this earth not in debt or
> which has significant budget deficits. And why, proving my earlier
> point, does the American government have to fund those companies ? The
> whole point of drugs companies being privately owned is to let them
> compete and get on with their tasks, you start puring government money
> in and the whole competition angle dies. Money is not wasted on a war,
> in a sense that war is always the last option and has specific
> objective in mind. Neither government could afford to do what you say,
> you're pretty clueless on the sums that would involve.
Hang on, why does there have to be competition between the drugs companies? And why can't the government subsidise it? I understand that there should be something spurring these companies to work faster to make these innoculations, but what's there to prevent the government helping the companies equally. You don't eliminate the competition, and you help out those in need, crucially. Call me naive, but I don't see why people should die because of money. And you're right, I've no idea of the amounts needed to fund this, but unless you're directly handling this I'd say that you haven't either, Belldandy.
> Here you actually have the crux of the whole problem, the British
> government would not withhold such a thing from it's own people
> because to do so would mean an end to that government. As it is the
> MOD is still just testing the vaccine for bubonic plague and hasn't
> even let its own soldiers have it, it still is not a cure for those
> infected by it anyway... In other words it is the primary
> responsibility of a country's government to provide for it's citizens,
> if it can't then it can get help at the cost of sticking to IMF / WB
> conformities like SAP's.
> But the problem is not America's, either you want America to be akin
> to the UN, or you want America to stop being an intefering capitalist
> aggressor....
It would be nice for America to at least review its foreign policy as it seems to be quite the pesky doctrine.
> >The problem's solution has to be found somewhere,
> and the start could easily come from America. Y'know (to use a
> terribly American sort of phrase), perhaps it's time for America to
> finally take charge in a situation that there can be no denying that
> needs to be done. If it provides the money to start some sort of
> global campaign, then it wouldn't have to fund the entire thing, as
> you suggest that it might.
>
> At one point in time, America could have done this, but now, with
> rising anti-western, anti-american feeling, you can forget it, It's
> not interested and neither are most of its allies. any attempt by any
> western coountry to intervene where they should, simply provokes
> angered responses in their own country, in other countries, and from
> the place itself. Too many nations and people have spent the past 50
> years telling America and many others where to get off, so guess what
> ? Their wish is our command. A strong UN could have prented this,
> instead you have a talking shop with no real power or will.
Much as this shouldn't be the case, the UN has indeed become a talking shop. But why? Has it got anything to do with it being abused by numerous countries, including America? The US isn't the only nation at fault here, but it has played a lot in the destruction of the UN's credibility. America just seems to expect the UN and all its members to follow whatever ideas it has. Take this stupid Iraq situation - America (followed by its lapdog, the UK) has threatened to ignore the UN's ruling and 'go it alone', to use one of Dunya's pet phrases. Does this make the UN seem like a true ruling body? If the UN is just the talking shop we all view it as being, then the bigger powers in the world should surely be showing the rest of the world that it is more than the pathetic body it is seen as today.
> Your understanding of America's enemies is woefully inadequate if you
> believe that relaxing drugs patents would make any difference.
I take it you refuse to listen to those that criticise America. If this is the case, you really shouldn't - a lot of hard-hitting information could show you where America is going wrong. America frequently displays itself as being out for itself, which is fine, but accompanies this with a total lack of morals or respect for those that it comes into contact with. Why do Al-Qa'eda detest America? A lot of reasons, but look closely at them and you'll see that they basically come down lack of respect for Muslims and Islam. They're extremists and so will not be pleased with what America does anyway, but look at other nations and people that have problems with the US. Just a little respect for others would enhance their views of America no end.
--bWo--
And while we're all camped around the "we hate America" campfire, news reports suggest that Saddam's time runs out about mid march..... so you can;
a) prepare the usual topics/comments for when it all kicks off
b) prepare something for when the proof the UN could not find, is found.
He's had 12 years to avoid this...
~~Belldandy~~
a) prepare the usual topics/comments for when it all kicks off
b) prepare something for when the proof the UN could not find, is found.
He's had 12 years to avoid this...
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Why take action when you can go and write stuff on a webboard that
> tries to convey the impression that, despite being a University drop
> out who plies his trade at a well known department store, one has
> access to extra and secret information that we mere mortals have no
> access too?
Well I hope you're info on Iraq is better my dear Light, because your info on me is, like Iraq's weapons declaration, wrong and inaccurate.... and this is coming from the ex solicitor whose presence for a number of years in our country's f$%^ked up legal system gives him an almost godly presence on the forum.....
1. I don't work in any department store.
2. I'm in the second year of university, I left Birmingham, had a gap year, then went elsewhere.
3. This is a forum, not a webboard.
4. If you take my little rants to be extra and secret information that mere mortals have no access to then more fool you, you jumped up something or other....
~~Belldandy~~
> Why take action when you can go and write stuff on a webboard that
> tries to convey the impression that, despite being a University drop
> out who plies his trade at a well known department store, one has
> access to extra and secret information that we mere mortals have no
> access too?
Well I hope you're info on Iraq is better my dear Light, because your info on me is, like Iraq's weapons declaration, wrong and inaccurate.... and this is coming from the ex solicitor whose presence for a number of years in our country's f$%^ked up legal system gives him an almost godly presence on the forum.....
1. I don't work in any department store.
2. I'm in the second year of university, I left Birmingham, had a gap year, then went elsewhere.
3. This is a forum, not a webboard.
4. If you take my little rants to be extra and secret information that mere mortals have no access to then more fool you, you jumped up something or other....
~~Belldandy~~
Page: