The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 the end of the world looms (well for the people of Iraq anyway!-no offence if you are an Iraqi!) do you feel it is right to go to War or not? Is George Bush wacko and has Tony Blair as his sidekick? I believe George Bush is just trying to finish off what his dad failed to do and that is to wipe out Saddam Hussein.
After September 11th everyone was against Afghanistan and British and American troops, boats and planes attacked them for a few weeks but then as everyone was getting bored of hearing the same old things day in day out on the news and starting to forget who they were against in the first place the target seemed to turn to Saddam Hussein.
Why didn't they finish off Osama Bin Laden and his armies and them move onto Saddam after? Now, Osama Bin Laden is still out there and could be planning another terrible attack right this minute that could strike any city in any country and cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Since the security at Heathrow airport was stepped up considerably they haven't told the public what the threat was, who sent the threat and when it was going to happen. The government must have known something about a plan to blow up a airoplane or something as the security wouldn't have just been stepped up at Heathrow over that certain week. Shouldn't the public deserve to know everything that is going on or when something does happen (I'm not saying it will!) everyone will panic and will not know what to do.
After the scare of that chemical being found in Britain why didn't the government issue everyone with a gas mask or a special suit to wear if a gas bomb is let off in a busy high street or subway. This would save the lives of thousands more people and wouldn't really cost that much money compared to the amount of money the government gets from taxes and the congestion charge etc...
I believe Tony Blair doesn't really know what to do and he is being forced to go to War by George Bush who is saying that as their country's friend we should help out in wiping out Saddamm Hussein. If you see the statistics you will se that the number of troops that Britain are and have sent to Iraq is nowhere near the size of the American troops. Is there any point in us going? It will only make Saddam Hussein and all of those terrorist groups want to attack Britain in return to get their own back on us.
Why have the Americans and Tony Blair suddenly turned to attacking Iraq as they haven't done anything yet and wasn't probably going to do anything with their so called 'weapons of mass destruction'. If the UN inspectors haven't found anything that has worried them then why doesn't America just sign a treaty with Iraq saying they won't use their weapons. Doesn't every country have the right to be able to keep missiles etc to protect themselves if they were to be attacked? Surely America and Britain have got weapons that could wipe out entire cities in one press of a button so why don't other countries try and stop us from having these?
This is what I think George Bush should do (on his own and not with Britain's backing):
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
If George Bush followed these set tasks then the world would be left in much less danger of being attacked and would be a much safer, nicer place to live plus everyone could live without the constant worry of possible attacks.
Please get back to me on this huge debate and feel free to discuss the possible War with Iraq right here in this forum!
Thank for reading!
pring
After September 11th everyone was against Afghanistan and British and American troops, boats and planes attacked them for a few weeks but then as everyone was getting bored of hearing the same old things day in day out on the news and starting to forget who they were against in the first place the target seemed to turn to Saddam Hussein.
Why didn't they finish off Osama Bin Laden and his armies and them move onto Saddam after? Now, Osama Bin Laden is still out there and could be planning another terrible attack right this minute that could strike any city in any country and cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Since the security at Heathrow airport was stepped up considerably they haven't told the public what the threat was, who sent the threat and when it was going to happen. The government must have known something about a plan to blow up a airoplane or something as the security wouldn't have just been stepped up at Heathrow over that certain week. Shouldn't the public deserve to know everything that is going on or when something does happen (I'm not saying it will!) everyone will panic and will not know what to do.
After the scare of that chemical being found in Britain why didn't the government issue everyone with a gas mask or a special suit to wear if a gas bomb is let off in a busy high street or subway. This would save the lives of thousands more people and wouldn't really cost that much money compared to the amount of money the government gets from taxes and the congestion charge etc...
I believe Tony Blair doesn't really know what to do and he is being forced to go to War by George Bush who is saying that as their country's friend we should help out in wiping out Saddamm Hussein. If you see the statistics you will se that the number of troops that Britain are and have sent to Iraq is nowhere near the size of the American troops. Is there any point in us going? It will only make Saddam Hussein and all of those terrorist groups want to attack Britain in return to get their own back on us.
Why have the Americans and Tony Blair suddenly turned to attacking Iraq as they haven't done anything yet and wasn't probably going to do anything with their so called 'weapons of mass destruction'. If the UN inspectors haven't found anything that has worried them then why doesn't America just sign a treaty with Iraq saying they won't use their weapons. Doesn't every country have the right to be able to keep missiles etc to protect themselves if they were to be attacked? Surely America and Britain have got weapons that could wipe out entire cities in one press of a button so why don't other countries try and stop us from having these?
This is what I think George Bush should do (on his own and not with Britain's backing):
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
If George Bush followed these set tasks then the world would be left in much less danger of being attacked and would be a much safer, nicer place to live plus everyone could live without the constant worry of possible attacks.
Please get back to me on this huge debate and feel free to discuss the possible War with Iraq right here in this forum!
Thank for reading!
pring
Apparently now Saddam Hussein wants to have a talk with George Bush live on air on a TV programme to discuss the possible War with Iraq!
This is mad as one of the most hated men in the world wants to come face to face with the man who wants him dead and has been wanting to capture Saddam for so long! Saddam is apparently hoping George will agree with this talk but there would be no way that the TV show would go smoothly but it would be quite interresting to see everyone having a gun fight on screen!
The government and the american president has agreed for the date that the War will start if Saddam doesn't come clean. This date is the end of March and around ten days before I go with my family to San Fransico, flying on British Airways! Scary stuff! Hopefully the airport security will be very high and the risk of an attack will be very unlikely!
One other bad thing as well!- This will only give me ten or so days to play Splinter Cell before I leave! Damn it! Better get straight to exercising those thumbs before I go then!!
A worried pring!
This is mad as one of the most hated men in the world wants to come face to face with the man who wants him dead and has been wanting to capture Saddam for so long! Saddam is apparently hoping George will agree with this talk but there would be no way that the TV show would go smoothly but it would be quite interresting to see everyone having a gun fight on screen!
The government and the american president has agreed for the date that the War will start if Saddam doesn't come clean. This date is the end of March and around ten days before I go with my family to San Fransico, flying on British Airways! Scary stuff! Hopefully the airport security will be very high and the risk of an attack will be very unlikely!
One other bad thing as well!- This will only give me ten or so days to play Splinter Cell before I leave! Damn it! Better get straight to exercising those thumbs before I go then!!
A worried pring!
Somebody should hold Blair hostage at gunpoint and demand that the public see this 'evidence' that links Al Queda to Ira. Apparently America have evidence but it is being kept under wraps.
Pfff.
Pfff.
I dont say Blair should be removed. I say that Blair should listen to a rising anti-war feeling in this country.
I dont mean the papers and straw-polls, I mean the average person on the street, I mean the million that peacefully marched to display their anger and reluctance to be pulled into this conflict.
I wont call it a war, because a war is two opposing sides fighting each other. The Gulf 2 is America and UK bombing the living daylights out of a country with zero infrastructure, no air-force, a bare-bones army and laughable weaponry.
There still has been no evidence of these weapons and there is zero proof of any links with Al Queda. Yet we know Algiers has them, they were the Ricin mob. We know the hook-handed bloke is preaching hate and do nothing. Mugabe is murdering more than Hussein has, and yet is invited to meetings in Paris.
Bin Laden still roams freely, North Korea has said it will kick America if it goes near them.
Civil war that has cost over a million lives still rages in Angola, Venuzuela routinely tortues, imprisons and murders dissidents, as in El Salvador where CIA operated death-squads enforce a pro-US government.
So why so hell-bent on Iraq? A country that has never threatened the West ever? He may be oppressing Kurds, but how does that differ from Mugabe? How does that differ from China when they murdered the students in Tianmen Square?
How is Hussein worse than General Pinochet, who flew in for medical treatment?
I just dont get this current climate of fear and hate towards Iraq. Because, and I repeat, there has been zero credible evidence offered of these weapons of mass destruction. If there were, the UN would be behind this in an instant.
We are being told that it's the "threat of what may happen" that warrants it. For me, that is simply not enough. There is no evidence that Hussein has any intention of attacking us at all. He never has, despite us already waging war on him.
I have no doubt that he is a tyrant to his own people, but this is the same for countless countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, who have far worse civil rights records yet we STILL export arms to them. And we, the taxpayer, foot the bill for non-payment of their arms bills.
We have an education system that is collapsing, the standard of living is widening the gap between rich and poor and so many other problems.
So why this bloodlust for a dictator that has never in his command made any gesture of hate towards us?
I'm not saying he's a worthy person, but I cannot see the justification for the spending of billions to remove him by force and quite possibly unsettle the entire region.
I dont mean the papers and straw-polls, I mean the average person on the street, I mean the million that peacefully marched to display their anger and reluctance to be pulled into this conflict.
I wont call it a war, because a war is two opposing sides fighting each other. The Gulf 2 is America and UK bombing the living daylights out of a country with zero infrastructure, no air-force, a bare-bones army and laughable weaponry.
There still has been no evidence of these weapons and there is zero proof of any links with Al Queda. Yet we know Algiers has them, they were the Ricin mob. We know the hook-handed bloke is preaching hate and do nothing. Mugabe is murdering more than Hussein has, and yet is invited to meetings in Paris.
Bin Laden still roams freely, North Korea has said it will kick America if it goes near them.
Civil war that has cost over a million lives still rages in Angola, Venuzuela routinely tortues, imprisons and murders dissidents, as in El Salvador where CIA operated death-squads enforce a pro-US government.
So why so hell-bent on Iraq? A country that has never threatened the West ever? He may be oppressing Kurds, but how does that differ from Mugabe? How does that differ from China when they murdered the students in Tianmen Square?
How is Hussein worse than General Pinochet, who flew in for medical treatment?
I just dont get this current climate of fear and hate towards Iraq. Because, and I repeat, there has been zero credible evidence offered of these weapons of mass destruction. If there were, the UN would be behind this in an instant.
We are being told that it's the "threat of what may happen" that warrants it. For me, that is simply not enough. There is no evidence that Hussein has any intention of attacking us at all. He never has, despite us already waging war on him.
I have no doubt that he is a tyrant to his own people, but this is the same for countless countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, who have far worse civil rights records yet we STILL export arms to them. And we, the taxpayer, foot the bill for non-payment of their arms bills.
We have an education system that is collapsing, the standard of living is widening the gap between rich and poor and so many other problems.
So why this bloodlust for a dictator that has never in his command made any gesture of hate towards us?
I'm not saying he's a worthy person, but I cannot see the justification for the spending of billions to remove him by force and quite possibly unsettle the entire region.
Goatboy wrote:
> And yet again you start with the oh-so-superior "I know more than
> you and will display it with my condescending attitude".
> And suggesting leaders should ignore the public is exactly the sort of
> the Hitler/Stalin/Hussein did, so doesn't that kind of negate your
> views on this, Mein Belldandy?
So you seriously think the solution to all the problems is for America to, by itself,
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
Ooookay.......that'd work easily. Hussein ignoring the public ? On tv the public look like they aren't being ignored in Iraq, of course we wouldn't actually see those who did not agree with them because they're "disappeared" magically....
Strangely , we elect a person to run the country, and yet whenever a really major challenge arises we decide that they're incapable of leadership, by virtue of being elected. I'm saying that all too often the most vocal public opinion is wrong, like those who suggest the return of capital punishment....sure, let people have their say, but lets not have mob rule.
~~Belldandy~~
> And yet again you start with the oh-so-superior "I know more than
> you and will display it with my condescending attitude".
> And suggesting leaders should ignore the public is exactly the sort of
> the Hitler/Stalin/Hussein did, so doesn't that kind of negate your
> views on this, Mein Belldandy?
So you seriously think the solution to all the problems is for America to, by itself,
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
Ooookay.......that'd work easily. Hussein ignoring the public ? On tv the public look like they aren't being ignored in Iraq, of course we wouldn't actually see those who did not agree with them because they're "disappeared" magically....
Strangely , we elect a person to run the country, and yet whenever a really major challenge arises we decide that they're incapable of leadership, by virtue of being elected. I'm saying that all too often the most vocal public opinion is wrong, like those who suggest the return of capital punishment....sure, let people have their say, but lets not have mob rule.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> And this is why programs like the BBC's "Iraq - Britiain
> Decides" were a total and utter waste of time.
Says you. Merely a personal opinion but still fine.
>but this is a totally idealistic, massively
> simplified, fairy land set of solutions. In fact it demonstrates why
> the leaders of countries should make decisions based on expert
> information, rather than listening to the public on such issues.
And yet again you start with the oh-so-superior "I know more than you and will display it with my condescending attitude".
And suggesting leaders should ignore the public is exactly the sort of the Hitler/Stalin/Hussein did, so doesn't that kind of negate your views on this, Mein Belldandy?
> And this is why programs like the BBC's "Iraq - Britiain
> Decides" were a total and utter waste of time.
Says you. Merely a personal opinion but still fine.
>but this is a totally idealistic, massively
> simplified, fairy land set of solutions. In fact it demonstrates why
> the leaders of countries should make decisions based on expert
> information, rather than listening to the public on such issues.
And yet again you start with the oh-so-superior "I know more than you and will display it with my condescending attitude".
And suggesting leaders should ignore the public is exactly the sort of the Hitler/Stalin/Hussein did, so doesn't that kind of negate your views on this, Mein Belldandy?
And this is why programs like the BBC's "Iraq - Britiain Decides" were a total and utter waste of time. No offence to the original poster, but this is a totally idealistic, massively simplified, fairy land set of solutions. In fact it demonstrates why the leaders of countries should make decisions based on expert information, rather than listening to the public on such issues.
On another note, hands up who remembers my post about the forthcoming Mildenhall Airshow in May ? Well, today, it's been cancelled because of "operational requirements", in other words Saddan has ran out out of time.
~~Belldandy~~
On another note, hands up who remembers my post about the forthcoming Mildenhall Airshow in May ? Well, today, it's been cancelled because of "operational requirements", in other words Saddan has ran out out of time.
~~Belldandy~~
pring wrote:
> -Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
---
That isn't really as easy as it sounds. We all know that George Bush has been after Bin Laden ever since he knew that Bin Laden was the brain behind the September 11 attacks - but he can't find him. He's searched and searched, and probably to no avail, unless Bin Laden was killed in one of the attacks on the mountains, which seems doubtful, as many video and tape messages have surfaced since then, apparently from Bin Laden himself. And to be honest, there isn't much point in re-searching the whole Afghani mountain area again just in the chance that you might find something. They've got much better things to do, like taking care of this Iraqi business, and keeping their eyes on North Korea.
---
> -Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the
> world.
---
Yeah, I'll give you that one, but again, it's not as easy as it sounds. There are so many terrorist groups around, scattered all over the globe, and there are many that they just couldn't completely destroy - and right now, as with the above, there are more pressing issues than completely stamping out terrorism, such as Iraq and North Korea.
---
> -Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
---
That's something that I can't see happening. Saddam Hussein tortures his people, apparently has weapons of mass destruction, and what's more, he's sitting on top of a huge oil supply that George Bush obviously wants to get his hands on. It would be a relief if they did sign a peace treaty, but it's just not going to happen - Saddam wouldn't accept, and I really doubt George Bush would offer in the first place.
---
> -Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive
> weapons.
---
Yet again, not as easy as it sounds. Ok, so if loads and loads of weapons inspectors were sent over to Iraq, then maybe this could be done quicker than it is being done now, but the Iraw is a huge country, and potential mass destructive weapons aren'ty exactly going to be plonked somewhere that the UN inspectors can find them - if Saddam really has something to hide, he'll hide it, and hide it well. Searching every building in Iraq would be a monsterous task, and there's still no guarenteeing that they'd come across anything.
> -Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
---
That isn't really as easy as it sounds. We all know that George Bush has been after Bin Laden ever since he knew that Bin Laden was the brain behind the September 11 attacks - but he can't find him. He's searched and searched, and probably to no avail, unless Bin Laden was killed in one of the attacks on the mountains, which seems doubtful, as many video and tape messages have surfaced since then, apparently from Bin Laden himself. And to be honest, there isn't much point in re-searching the whole Afghani mountain area again just in the chance that you might find something. They've got much better things to do, like taking care of this Iraqi business, and keeping their eyes on North Korea.
---
> -Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the
> world.
---
Yeah, I'll give you that one, but again, it's not as easy as it sounds. There are so many terrorist groups around, scattered all over the globe, and there are many that they just couldn't completely destroy - and right now, as with the above, there are more pressing issues than completely stamping out terrorism, such as Iraq and North Korea.
---
> -Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
---
That's something that I can't see happening. Saddam Hussein tortures his people, apparently has weapons of mass destruction, and what's more, he's sitting on top of a huge oil supply that George Bush obviously wants to get his hands on. It would be a relief if they did sign a peace treaty, but it's just not going to happen - Saddam wouldn't accept, and I really doubt George Bush would offer in the first place.
---
> -Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive
> weapons.
---
Yet again, not as easy as it sounds. Ok, so if loads and loads of weapons inspectors were sent over to Iraq, then maybe this could be done quicker than it is being done now, but the Iraw is a huge country, and potential mass destructive weapons aren'ty exactly going to be plonked somewhere that the UN inspectors can find them - if Saddam really has something to hide, he'll hide it, and hide it well. Searching every building in Iraq would be a monsterous task, and there's still no guarenteeing that they'd come across anything.
As the end of the world looms (well for the people of Iraq anyway!-no offence if you are an Iraqi!) do you feel it is right to go to War or not? Is George Bush wacko and has Tony Blair as his sidekick? I believe George Bush is just trying to finish off what his dad failed to do and that is to wipe out Saddam Hussein.
After September 11th everyone was against Afghanistan and British and American troops, boats and planes attacked them for a few weeks but then as everyone was getting bored of hearing the same old things day in day out on the news and starting to forget who they were against in the first place the target seemed to turn to Saddam Hussein.
Why didn't they finish off Osama Bin Laden and his armies and them move onto Saddam after? Now, Osama Bin Laden is still out there and could be planning another terrible attack right this minute that could strike any city in any country and cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Since the security at Heathrow airport was stepped up considerably they haven't told the public what the threat was, who sent the threat and when it was going to happen. The government must have known something about a plan to blow up a airoplane or something as the security wouldn't have just been stepped up at Heathrow over that certain week. Shouldn't the public deserve to know everything that is going on or when something does happen (I'm not saying it will!) everyone will panic and will not know what to do.
After the scare of that chemical being found in Britain why didn't the government issue everyone with a gas mask or a special suit to wear if a gas bomb is let off in a busy high street or subway. This would save the lives of thousands more people and wouldn't really cost that much money compared to the amount of money the government gets from taxes and the congestion charge etc...
I believe Tony Blair doesn't really know what to do and he is being forced to go to War by George Bush who is saying that as their country's friend we should help out in wiping out Saddamm Hussein. If you see the statistics you will se that the number of troops that Britain are and have sent to Iraq is nowhere near the size of the American troops. Is there any point in us going? It will only make Saddam Hussein and all of those terrorist groups want to attack Britain in return to get their own back on us.
Why have the Americans and Tony Blair suddenly turned to attacking Iraq as they haven't done anything yet and wasn't probably going to do anything with their so called 'weapons of mass destruction'. If the UN inspectors haven't found anything that has worried them then why doesn't America just sign a treaty with Iraq saying they won't use their weapons. Doesn't every country have the right to be able to keep missiles etc to protect themselves if they were to be attacked? Surely America and Britain have got weapons that could wipe out entire cities in one press of a button so why don't other countries try and stop us from having these?
This is what I think George Bush should do (on his own and not with Britain's backing):
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
If George Bush followed these set tasks then the world would be left in much less danger of being attacked and would be a much safer, nicer place to live plus everyone could live without the constant worry of possible attacks.
Please get back to me on this huge debate and feel free to discuss the possible War with Iraq right here in this forum!
Thank for reading!
pring
After September 11th everyone was against Afghanistan and British and American troops, boats and planes attacked them for a few weeks but then as everyone was getting bored of hearing the same old things day in day out on the news and starting to forget who they were against in the first place the target seemed to turn to Saddam Hussein.
Why didn't they finish off Osama Bin Laden and his armies and them move onto Saddam after? Now, Osama Bin Laden is still out there and could be planning another terrible attack right this minute that could strike any city in any country and cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Since the security at Heathrow airport was stepped up considerably they haven't told the public what the threat was, who sent the threat and when it was going to happen. The government must have known something about a plan to blow up a airoplane or something as the security wouldn't have just been stepped up at Heathrow over that certain week. Shouldn't the public deserve to know everything that is going on or when something does happen (I'm not saying it will!) everyone will panic and will not know what to do.
After the scare of that chemical being found in Britain why didn't the government issue everyone with a gas mask or a special suit to wear if a gas bomb is let off in a busy high street or subway. This would save the lives of thousands more people and wouldn't really cost that much money compared to the amount of money the government gets from taxes and the congestion charge etc...
I believe Tony Blair doesn't really know what to do and he is being forced to go to War by George Bush who is saying that as their country's friend we should help out in wiping out Saddamm Hussein. If you see the statistics you will se that the number of troops that Britain are and have sent to Iraq is nowhere near the size of the American troops. Is there any point in us going? It will only make Saddam Hussein and all of those terrorist groups want to attack Britain in return to get their own back on us.
Why have the Americans and Tony Blair suddenly turned to attacking Iraq as they haven't done anything yet and wasn't probably going to do anything with their so called 'weapons of mass destruction'. If the UN inspectors haven't found anything that has worried them then why doesn't America just sign a treaty with Iraq saying they won't use their weapons. Doesn't every country have the right to be able to keep missiles etc to protect themselves if they were to be attacked? Surely America and Britain have got weapons that could wipe out entire cities in one press of a button so why don't other countries try and stop us from having these?
This is what I think George Bush should do (on his own and not with Britain's backing):
-Take care of Osama Bin Laden.
-Take care of all the terrorist groups they are aware of in the world.
-Sign a peace treaty with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
-Search every building in Iraq and get rid of highly destructive weapons.
If George Bush followed these set tasks then the world would be left in much less danger of being attacked and would be a much safer, nicer place to live plus everyone could live without the constant worry of possible attacks.
Please get back to me on this huge debate and feel free to discuss the possible War with Iraq right here in this forum!
Thank for reading!
pring