The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 country prepares for the impending war that no-one wants, I thought I should share with you some patent double standards that exist in the world we live in. If this might strike you as being biased, it's not. These are simple matters of FACT:
Q. Which country alone in the middle east has nuclear weapons?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country refuses to sign a non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspectors?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country is in defiance of 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in 20 of these cases by a US veto on the security council?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has assassinated a high-ranking UN official?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has just re-elected as Prime Minister the man who ordered that assassination?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has dispossessed 4,000 Palestinains by demolishing their homes, has created 760,000 refugees, refusing them permission to return to their farms and businesses?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country regularly breaks the Geneva Convention by imposing collective "punishments" on whole towns and villages?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has used a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. a "smart bomb") on a densely populated civilian area, killing 15 civilians, including 9 children?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country receives weaponry from the US for nothing, which it sells to China in defiance of protests to the US?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country, reckoned to be the 16th richest in the world, receives a third of all US overseas aid?
A, Yes, you've guessed correctly - Israel.
Before anyone tries to rebuke these statments of fact: they are extracts of a report/questionnaire compiled by Brigadier James J David (retired), Company Commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam from 1969-70 and a veteran of three years active duty in the Middle East 1966-70.
So there we have it. Truth is a double edged sword and the current plight of the world is no exception.
Q. Which country alone in the middle east has nuclear weapons?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country refuses to sign a non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspectors?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country is in defiance of 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in 20 of these cases by a US veto on the security council?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has assassinated a high-ranking UN official?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has just re-elected as Prime Minister the man who ordered that assassination?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has dispossessed 4,000 Palestinains by demolishing their homes, has created 760,000 refugees, refusing them permission to return to their farms and businesses?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country regularly breaks the Geneva Convention by imposing collective "punishments" on whole towns and villages?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country has used a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. a "smart bomb") on a densely populated civilian area, killing 15 civilians, including 9 children?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country receives weaponry from the US for nothing, which it sells to China in defiance of protests to the US?
A. Israel.
Q. Which country, reckoned to be the 16th richest in the world, receives a third of all US overseas aid?
A, Yes, you've guessed correctly - Israel.
Before anyone tries to rebuke these statments of fact: they are extracts of a report/questionnaire compiled by Brigadier James J David (retired), Company Commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam from 1969-70 and a veteran of three years active duty in the Middle East 1966-70.
So there we have it. Truth is a double edged sword and the current plight of the world is no exception.
Page:
One rule for nations who have Dubya's support, one rule for nations who have something Dubya wants...
POP!
Just thought 'd boost this up the forums a bit so you can read it. One rule for one nation and another rule for another nation?
Just thought 'd boost this up the forums a bit so you can read it. One rule for one nation and another rule for another nation?
Belldandy wrote:
> people dying needlessly because neither side can back down and sort
> the problem out to the agreement of both sides,
I doubt the Palestinians will want anything more or less than their country back. Where the UN got the sheer audacity to deport an entire country because they sympathised with a bunch of shouty religious civilian war victims is beyond me.
"Ooh, but it was our country a few thousand years ago, and it has religious meaning to us"
But you got kicked out in an ancient war, and surely your religion doesn't require you to worship places, God is everywhere."
"Hitler killed loads of Jews!"
By gum, give them any land they choose.
Stupidity. Anyone who was foolish enough to think the Palestinians would just sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the UN pushed them out of their homes and fitted in a civiliasation of Jews in their place was nothing short of deluded and mentally deficient.
> people dying needlessly because neither side can back down and sort
> the problem out to the agreement of both sides,
I doubt the Palestinians will want anything more or less than their country back. Where the UN got the sheer audacity to deport an entire country because they sympathised with a bunch of shouty religious civilian war victims is beyond me.
"Ooh, but it was our country a few thousand years ago, and it has religious meaning to us"
But you got kicked out in an ancient war, and surely your religion doesn't require you to worship places, God is everywhere."
"Hitler killed loads of Jews!"
By gum, give them any land they choose.
Stupidity. Anyone who was foolish enough to think the Palestinians would just sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the UN pushed them out of their homes and fitted in a civiliasation of Jews in their place was nothing short of deluded and mentally deficient.
Or, and here is a radical concept, you could try to stop scoring points off each other's knowledge about the 2 sides in the continuing slo-mo atrocity that is the holy land.
Then, perhaps instead of looking for who to blame for starting what, you could accept that the entire situation is destroying both sides in terms of infratructure, human rights restrictions, and lives. In which case, it's best for both sides to stop bombing and shooting each other and sit down and talk.
For the record, I entirely agree with the points about the UN resolutions. For all Bell and others have made the various sophistic points to differenciate Iraq's non-compliance from Israel's, the whole situation does go to show how utterly contemptable Dubya's attempts to justify his oil war on this ground are.
But when you get to the stage of "(X) aren't as bad as (Y) because they didn't start committing their atrocities until (Y) did", the whole argument becomes sort of redundant.
Then, perhaps instead of looking for who to blame for starting what, you could accept that the entire situation is destroying both sides in terms of infratructure, human rights restrictions, and lives. In which case, it's best for both sides to stop bombing and shooting each other and sit down and talk.
For the record, I entirely agree with the points about the UN resolutions. For all Bell and others have made the various sophistic points to differenciate Iraq's non-compliance from Israel's, the whole situation does go to show how utterly contemptable Dubya's attempts to justify his oil war on this ground are.
But when you get to the stage of "(X) aren't as bad as (Y) because they didn't start committing their atrocities until (Y) did", the whole argument becomes sort of redundant.
Belldandy wrote:
> instead we have Arafat and Sharon.....yay
The English media's done a good job eh?
IF you didn't know Arafat is in fact the one holding the extremeists off and not letting them do what they wanted to. Should a new leader come in for the Palestinians then chaos in its purest form would break out in Palestine. All the extremeist groups would do what they want.
The problem is is that violence seems to be the only way the PAlestinians can do anything about it is by violence. Sharon has managed to block Arafat from any sort of peace negotiations and has ignored him in the full meaning of the word.
BAck to the suicide bombings. What would you do if you were in a positions where you have been bullied by Israeli soldiers from the beggining of your life, probably seen your parents and family killed, tortured or beaten up by these 'peace-forces'. You had 3 children who all had a good future ahead of them provided there would be peace. NAturally you want the best for your children and your family. Right? But you can't do anything about the current political climate because you've been shut-up by the government. What else can you do? By the way I do not support the suicide bombings in civilian areas because in any case at all killing civilians is wrong, but if they can effect politics in any way possible, then so be it.
> instead we have Arafat and Sharon.....yay
The English media's done a good job eh?
IF you didn't know Arafat is in fact the one holding the extremeists off and not letting them do what they wanted to. Should a new leader come in for the Palestinians then chaos in its purest form would break out in Palestine. All the extremeist groups would do what they want.
The problem is is that violence seems to be the only way the PAlestinians can do anything about it is by violence. Sharon has managed to block Arafat from any sort of peace negotiations and has ignored him in the full meaning of the word.
BAck to the suicide bombings. What would you do if you were in a positions where you have been bullied by Israeli soldiers from the beggining of your life, probably seen your parents and family killed, tortured or beaten up by these 'peace-forces'. You had 3 children who all had a good future ahead of them provided there would be peace. NAturally you want the best for your children and your family. Right? But you can't do anything about the current political climate because you've been shut-up by the government. What else can you do? By the way I do not support the suicide bombings in civilian areas because in any case at all killing civilians is wrong, but if they can effect politics in any way possible, then so be it.
Belldandy wrote:
> So let me put this to you, Belldandy - should the US attack Israel? If
> not, why not?
> Because there is no reason. Israel is not a clear and present threat
> to the security of the USA, or any other country.
Except its' own people (Palestinians) who have a right to live there. And perhaps Syria and Egypt. Last time I saw, Iraq wasn't a threat to the US either as there has been no evidence pointed at the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam unless you want to count the "government document" that was plagiarised from a Californian student's thesis as proof...
In addition such an
> attack would encourage other nations to join against Israel such as
> Syria and the Palestinians, in a war that Israel could only win one
> way - nuclear attack.
Syria and the Pelstinians have been attacking Israel for years, regardless of any US intervention. And will continue to do so as more Palestinians are forced out of their homes or have their businesses destroyed.
>Syria, the Lebanon, and any other neighbour attacking them would be
> ahhnilated, millions of civilians dead, all for no other reason than
> people like you wanting action taken.
So how is that different from attacking Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? What about people like you wanting to attack Iraq and see innocent people die? How is that any different?
>Iraq has had 12 years to do what it was asked, it hasn't, and still defies
the UN.
As does Israel except they've been doing it for about 20 years or more.
Has ANY nation pressed the UN for action against Israel's
> broken resolutions ? No, and in any case diplomacy is the first
> option, not immediate warfare as you suggest here.
Diplomacy? Pah! If you want diplomacy to exist above other options, then give Iraq more time to prove that they're not breaking any UN resolutions.
Nearly every Arab nation not to mention European nations have pleaded with the UN to stop the gross abuse of human rights in Israel. But they won't. Probably because they don't want to look wrong when they've illegally given a country to the Israelis' - which they had no right to give in the first place.
> So let me put this to you, Belldandy - should the US attack Israel? If
> not, why not?
> Because there is no reason. Israel is not a clear and present threat
> to the security of the USA, or any other country.
Except its' own people (Palestinians) who have a right to live there. And perhaps Syria and Egypt. Last time I saw, Iraq wasn't a threat to the US either as there has been no evidence pointed at the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam unless you want to count the "government document" that was plagiarised from a Californian student's thesis as proof...
In addition such an
> attack would encourage other nations to join against Israel such as
> Syria and the Palestinians, in a war that Israel could only win one
> way - nuclear attack.
Syria and the Pelstinians have been attacking Israel for years, regardless of any US intervention. And will continue to do so as more Palestinians are forced out of their homes or have their businesses destroyed.
>Syria, the Lebanon, and any other neighbour attacking them would be
> ahhnilated, millions of civilians dead, all for no other reason than
> people like you wanting action taken.
So how is that different from attacking Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? What about people like you wanting to attack Iraq and see innocent people die? How is that any different?
>Iraq has had 12 years to do what it was asked, it hasn't, and still defies
the UN.
As does Israel except they've been doing it for about 20 years or more.
Has ANY nation pressed the UN for action against Israel's
> broken resolutions ? No, and in any case diplomacy is the first
> option, not immediate warfare as you suggest here.
Diplomacy? Pah! If you want diplomacy to exist above other options, then give Iraq more time to prove that they're not breaking any UN resolutions.
Nearly every Arab nation not to mention European nations have pleaded with the UN to stop the gross abuse of human rights in Israel. But they won't. Probably because they don't want to look wrong when they've illegally given a country to the Israelis' - which they had no right to give in the first place.
unknown kernel wrote:
> The first suicide bombing took place in 1994, so you can't use them as
> retroactive justification for stealing and settling Palestinian lands
> and killing hundreds of civilians in 'security operations'
Well IB is using the taking of the land as justification for assassinating Israeli officials so what is the difference ? Still people dying needlessly because neither side can back down and sort the problem out to the agreement of both sides, and because numerous groups seek to blame one side for the problem, and not both. Both are to blame, and only by working for both sides objectives will any peace plan work, all that is needed are for both sides to get leaders with the will to do so, instead we have Arafat and Sharon.....yay
~~Belldandy~~
> The first suicide bombing took place in 1994, so you can't use them as
> retroactive justification for stealing and settling Palestinian lands
> and killing hundreds of civilians in 'security operations'
Well IB is using the taking of the land as justification for assassinating Israeli officials so what is the difference ? Still people dying needlessly because neither side can back down and sort the problem out to the agreement of both sides, and because numerous groups seek to blame one side for the problem, and not both. Both are to blame, and only by working for both sides objectives will any peace plan work, all that is needed are for both sides to get leaders with the will to do so, instead we have Arafat and Sharon.....yay
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> What about stopping suicide bombings targeting civilians on purpose eh
> ?
The first suicide bombing took place in 1994, so you can't use them as retroactive justification for stealing and settling Palestinian lands and killing hundreds of civilians in 'security operations'.
> What about stopping suicide bombings targeting civilians on purpose eh
> ?
The first suicide bombing took place in 1994, so you can't use them as retroactive justification for stealing and settling Palestinian lands and killing hundreds of civilians in 'security operations'.
Unbeliever wrote:
> You can't justify a war against Iraq when other nations are equally as
> guilty. You can't have one rule for one and one for another. So lets
> me put this to you, Belldandy - should the US attack Israel? If not,
> why not?
Because there is no reason. Israel is not a clear and present threat to the security of the USA, or any other country. In addition such an attack would encourage other nations to join against Israel such as Syria and the Palestinians, in a war that Israel could only win one way - nuclear attack. Syria, the Lebanon, and any other neighbour attacking them would be ahhnilated, millions of civilians dead, all for no other reason than people like you wanting action taken. Iraq has had 12 years to do what it was asked, it hasn't, and still defies the UN. Has ANY nation pressed the UN for action against Israel's broken resolutions ? No, and in any case diplomacy is the first option, not immediate warfare as you suggest here.
On another note, it's not exactly ideal to attack every nation at once is it, no one has that capability. Instead you go one by one, resulting to force as a last result as in Afghanistan, and probably Iraq. N.Korea is pressing for help and seeing how far it can go, it knows that it loses in any war the moment it starts one, thus diplomacy will work in that situation. Iran ? It's never been matey with Iraq, so the end of that regime will help the authorities there, and they are making efforts to find terrorist elements. India / Pakistan ? Lots of sabre rattling, but the threat of force will almost certainly keep them at the diplomatic table. Only Iraq has failed so far to realise this isn't the nineties, the old tactics will not work anymore.
~~Belldandy~~
> You can't justify a war against Iraq when other nations are equally as
> guilty. You can't have one rule for one and one for another. So lets
> me put this to you, Belldandy - should the US attack Israel? If not,
> why not?
Because there is no reason. Israel is not a clear and present threat to the security of the USA, or any other country. In addition such an attack would encourage other nations to join against Israel such as Syria and the Palestinians, in a war that Israel could only win one way - nuclear attack. Syria, the Lebanon, and any other neighbour attacking them would be ahhnilated, millions of civilians dead, all for no other reason than people like you wanting action taken. Iraq has had 12 years to do what it was asked, it hasn't, and still defies the UN. Has ANY nation pressed the UN for action against Israel's broken resolutions ? No, and in any case diplomacy is the first option, not immediate warfare as you suggest here.
On another note, it's not exactly ideal to attack every nation at once is it, no one has that capability. Instead you go one by one, resulting to force as a last result as in Afghanistan, and probably Iraq. N.Korea is pressing for help and seeing how far it can go, it knows that it loses in any war the moment it starts one, thus diplomacy will work in that situation. Iran ? It's never been matey with Iraq, so the end of that regime will help the authorities there, and they are making efforts to find terrorist elements. India / Pakistan ? Lots of sabre rattling, but the threat of force will almost certainly keep them at the diplomatic table. Only Iraq has failed so far to realise this isn't the nineties, the old tactics will not work anymore.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> What about stopping suicide bombings targeting civilians on purpose eh
> ?
With me dad being a former Palestinian refugee who left Jerusalem because he was kicked out when he was v. young, that's a soft point. I'l type more when I get out of physics.
> What about stopping suicide bombings targeting civilians on purpose eh
> ?
With me dad being a former Palestinian refugee who left Jerusalem because he was kicked out when he was v. young, that's a soft point. I'l type more when I get out of physics.
Page: