The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yup, after reading through a few posts on here and seeing how many people take my stance of staying away from the life forums, I wanted to do this topic.
Yesterday I watched Kofi Annan, on Sky, answer questions about the whole Iraq situation. One thing that stood out more than ever, to me, was that this was a guy who actually did want so see a true United Nations. To quote; "The council acts best when it is united."
It's right, but not the case we are seeing right now. It is, as you all know, divided into pro, anti, and "what do we get if we support you" groups of nations. America is essentially threatening the withdrawal and denial of aid to several nations if they do not get in line with the US stance. To me that is plain wrong because aid is aid, it is something you give to those who need it, and yes, you expect friendship in return maybe, but not an automatic over-ride on a nation's stance on an issue. What happened to political sovereignty ?
To add to this, General Meyes, speaking from the Pentagon, in response to a question about Turkey's refusal to let the US use military bases, said this; "We will open a second front in Northern Iraq with or without Turkey's help."
Excuse me ? What on earth is the point in saying that ? It is simply fuelling the belief that the USA will do whatever it wants and steam roller over everything in its way to do so.
Think back to New Years Eve 1999, the Millennium, the year 2000, a new century, was near. Conflict, on the level we are seeing now, and may well see, was not happening. Iraq was contained, terrorism was a rare occurence outside of the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians were at a somewhat uneasy halt, there was much talk of alleviating third world debt, in other words the outlook was positive. I, and no doubt many others, thought this was the start of some of the better chapters in history. It wasn't a perfect world by far, but many were giving it a damn good go.
A year and half later it fell apart, around 20 men, and a bunch of guys in a cave, ended the illusion. At the time the response, Operation Enduring Freedom, seemed the right thing to do, in my opinion. Now ? well many Afghani's have a better life for sure, but the root of the problem, the hardcore terrorists and leaders, were long gone. We killed many many fighters who in all realism would never have left Afghanistan. The objective was to get those behind 9/11, and disassemble the infrastructure of Al Queda, and their Taliban supporters, in Afghanistan. To a degree it worked, but many spread around the world.
The USA, UK, and the West in general, have hardened security to counter terrorists, so the terrorists are hitting people outside of those areas. Kenya, Bali, Phillipines, Indonesia - easy targets. We're not really winning, we're displacing.
Originally I believed that George Bush was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But his policies are destroying most hope for any kind of better future for us, the people of Iraq, and anyone else his policies effect. That US ambassador's letter was right, in a way. Everything that America and successive administrations have worked for, the alliances and trusts, is being destroyed overnight.
For what ? The world, and international politics, is ripping itself apart because of a small oil rich nation which has largely been ignored for over ten years. Iraq is, in the face of overwhelming odds, making some slow concessions.
I beleived at one point that concessions like these were always stalling tactics, ploys to spin out time. But, what if this is a case of two different kinds of culture, politics, governments, clashing and not understanding each other ? Do we really want to do this because of misunderstanding ?
The announced strategy today, is another reason for my change of heart. More ordinance than was used in the entire Gulf War, will hit Baghdad in one night on the first day of war. That is, to anyone who knows what kind of weapons will be used, insane. I don't know about shock and awe but it's going to do little to win over Iraqi civilians, even I will admit that that amount of weaponry will kill more innocents than it will targets.
Bush is, I fear, losing sight of the objective - the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam. We know full well that anyone in the Iraqi military who opposes Saddam is dead, along with his family, and anyone else who supports him. We know that the scientists we question cannot give us what we want, and that they endanger themselves and their families if they do. A full on invasion is overkill, because whilst Iraqi soliders are dying, Saddam will be safe, and more than likely flee or hide.
What needs to happen, is for people to back down and admit they are wrong, like I'm doing now. You can carry on saying something for so long that to go back on it seems impossible, a loss of face, but when the stakes are potentially thousands of lives, it has to be done.
Bush needs to back down, and the other countries need to give him the space and support so he can do so and retain some credibility. You may think Bush does not deserve such support, but is is the only way America could back down now. Saddam also needs to back down, give the UN more time and access, and in a perfect world, Saddam would step back, allow free elections - like Iran is suggesting - and let a semblance of democracy begin. Again, America needs to give Iraq space. 250 000 troops is overkill, they'll wipe out the entire Iraqi army but not Saddam. The threat of force has obtained co operation, but it is a a somewhat hard handed way of doing it.
Maybe we don't need war, but neither is containment an option again. It's killing the Iraqi's and doing nothing for the UN's image in the Iraq.
You may have noticed a deviation from my normal tone here, slightly.
Let me make this clear; I believe in America, and the idea of the American dream, and that given the right person America can be an agent of true democracy, freedom and all that entails. In fact given the right people in charge of many countries, and I can offer no idea of who these people would be, except to say they would be "Good" people - however you define them - , this could be a different world.
George Bush is not one of these good men, neither is Saddam, neither is Yassir Arafat, neither is Ariel Sharon. Between them, these four men are destroying any hope of a finer world for all of us, and not just for us - as in the West - but for everyone. War isn't going to make that world because the peace it creates is just an absence of war, not true peace.
Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then. I still believe in America - whatever you think that is - but not Bush. In many ways he is changing what America is and stands for, and I am thinking that the UN is now the only organisation, along with people in the US administration, who can stop this before it is too late.
More and more I think that if we attack Iraq, in this way, at this time, we wave goodbye to peace for our, and our childrens, lifetimes, and maybe beyond.
If you read this far, thanks for reading.
Yesterday I watched Kofi Annan, on Sky, answer questions about the whole Iraq situation. One thing that stood out more than ever, to me, was that this was a guy who actually did want so see a true United Nations. To quote; "The council acts best when it is united."
It's right, but not the case we are seeing right now. It is, as you all know, divided into pro, anti, and "what do we get if we support you" groups of nations. America is essentially threatening the withdrawal and denial of aid to several nations if they do not get in line with the US stance. To me that is plain wrong because aid is aid, it is something you give to those who need it, and yes, you expect friendship in return maybe, but not an automatic over-ride on a nation's stance on an issue. What happened to political sovereignty ?
To add to this, General Meyes, speaking from the Pentagon, in response to a question about Turkey's refusal to let the US use military bases, said this; "We will open a second front in Northern Iraq with or without Turkey's help."
Excuse me ? What on earth is the point in saying that ? It is simply fuelling the belief that the USA will do whatever it wants and steam roller over everything in its way to do so.
Think back to New Years Eve 1999, the Millennium, the year 2000, a new century, was near. Conflict, on the level we are seeing now, and may well see, was not happening. Iraq was contained, terrorism was a rare occurence outside of the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians were at a somewhat uneasy halt, there was much talk of alleviating third world debt, in other words the outlook was positive. I, and no doubt many others, thought this was the start of some of the better chapters in history. It wasn't a perfect world by far, but many were giving it a damn good go.
A year and half later it fell apart, around 20 men, and a bunch of guys in a cave, ended the illusion. At the time the response, Operation Enduring Freedom, seemed the right thing to do, in my opinion. Now ? well many Afghani's have a better life for sure, but the root of the problem, the hardcore terrorists and leaders, were long gone. We killed many many fighters who in all realism would never have left Afghanistan. The objective was to get those behind 9/11, and disassemble the infrastructure of Al Queda, and their Taliban supporters, in Afghanistan. To a degree it worked, but many spread around the world.
The USA, UK, and the West in general, have hardened security to counter terrorists, so the terrorists are hitting people outside of those areas. Kenya, Bali, Phillipines, Indonesia - easy targets. We're not really winning, we're displacing.
Originally I believed that George Bush was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But his policies are destroying most hope for any kind of better future for us, the people of Iraq, and anyone else his policies effect. That US ambassador's letter was right, in a way. Everything that America and successive administrations have worked for, the alliances and trusts, is being destroyed overnight.
For what ? The world, and international politics, is ripping itself apart because of a small oil rich nation which has largely been ignored for over ten years. Iraq is, in the face of overwhelming odds, making some slow concessions.
I beleived at one point that concessions like these were always stalling tactics, ploys to spin out time. But, what if this is a case of two different kinds of culture, politics, governments, clashing and not understanding each other ? Do we really want to do this because of misunderstanding ?
The announced strategy today, is another reason for my change of heart. More ordinance than was used in the entire Gulf War, will hit Baghdad in one night on the first day of war. That is, to anyone who knows what kind of weapons will be used, insane. I don't know about shock and awe but it's going to do little to win over Iraqi civilians, even I will admit that that amount of weaponry will kill more innocents than it will targets.
Bush is, I fear, losing sight of the objective - the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam. We know full well that anyone in the Iraqi military who opposes Saddam is dead, along with his family, and anyone else who supports him. We know that the scientists we question cannot give us what we want, and that they endanger themselves and their families if they do. A full on invasion is overkill, because whilst Iraqi soliders are dying, Saddam will be safe, and more than likely flee or hide.
What needs to happen, is for people to back down and admit they are wrong, like I'm doing now. You can carry on saying something for so long that to go back on it seems impossible, a loss of face, but when the stakes are potentially thousands of lives, it has to be done.
Bush needs to back down, and the other countries need to give him the space and support so he can do so and retain some credibility. You may think Bush does not deserve such support, but is is the only way America could back down now. Saddam also needs to back down, give the UN more time and access, and in a perfect world, Saddam would step back, allow free elections - like Iran is suggesting - and let a semblance of democracy begin. Again, America needs to give Iraq space. 250 000 troops is overkill, they'll wipe out the entire Iraqi army but not Saddam. The threat of force has obtained co operation, but it is a a somewhat hard handed way of doing it.
Maybe we don't need war, but neither is containment an option again. It's killing the Iraqi's and doing nothing for the UN's image in the Iraq.
You may have noticed a deviation from my normal tone here, slightly.
Let me make this clear; I believe in America, and the idea of the American dream, and that given the right person America can be an agent of true democracy, freedom and all that entails. In fact given the right people in charge of many countries, and I can offer no idea of who these people would be, except to say they would be "Good" people - however you define them - , this could be a different world.
George Bush is not one of these good men, neither is Saddam, neither is Yassir Arafat, neither is Ariel Sharon. Between them, these four men are destroying any hope of a finer world for all of us, and not just for us - as in the West - but for everyone. War isn't going to make that world because the peace it creates is just an absence of war, not true peace.
Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then. I still believe in America - whatever you think that is - but not Bush. In many ways he is changing what America is and stands for, and I am thinking that the UN is now the only organisation, along with people in the US administration, who can stop this before it is too late.
More and more I think that if we attack Iraq, in this way, at this time, we wave goodbye to peace for our, and our childrens, lifetimes, and maybe beyond.
If you read this far, thanks for reading.
Page:
Just a test eh? And you say you don't care what anyone else says. So...why spend so much effort rebutting what is being said? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Oh, and don't feel too bad if you need to take another couple of weeks to figure out how to answer that one.
Anyway, seeing as you're still twisting and turning to try and find ways in which you can't be demonstrated to be wrong, let us go back to your definition of "Idea's that meet resistance".
A long time ago, you said that there was no resistance to the war because resistance should be defined as "Breaking the law". Leaving aside the fact that anti-war protesters have in fact been arrested, I asked you how this could be reconciled with an earlier statement of yours concerning prostitutions, namely that "Any idea that meets with resistance (in this case, the legalisation of prostitution) was a bad one". Your (somewhat muddled) response was that it is already meeting resistance because prostitution is illegal.
Now then sweetheart, could you answer me this: The opponents of prostitution are not the ones breaking the law. It's those who use prostitutes who are. Therefore, according to your own definition and your own logic, the legalisation of prostitution is not meeting any resistance. Is it, therefore, still a bad idea?
Oh, and don't feel too bad if you need to take another couple of weeks to figure out how to answer that one.
Anyway, seeing as you're still twisting and turning to try and find ways in which you can't be demonstrated to be wrong, let us go back to your definition of "Idea's that meet resistance".
A long time ago, you said that there was no resistance to the war because resistance should be defined as "Breaking the law". Leaving aside the fact that anti-war protesters have in fact been arrested, I asked you how this could be reconciled with an earlier statement of yours concerning prostitutions, namely that "Any idea that meets with resistance (in this case, the legalisation of prostitution) was a bad one". Your (somewhat muddled) response was that it is already meeting resistance because prostitution is illegal.
Now then sweetheart, could you answer me this: The opponents of prostitution are not the ones breaking the law. It's those who use prostitutes who are. Therefore, according to your own definition and your own logic, the legalisation of prostitution is not meeting any resistance. Is it, therefore, still a bad idea?
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Star Fury wrote:
>
> *decides doesn't really care*
>
> Aren't you being a little ironic, if that's the word?
>
> I mean, it's like people that go around saying "I'm insane I am!
> Completely crazy!"
>
> If you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying, and you would most
> certainly not be making the point so continously and obviously that
> you didn't care. If you didn't care you wouldn't reply at all.
>
> There's nothing wrong with caring, there's just a little something
> wrong with lying to cover up your tracks and to try and stay in
> control. It really won't help you in life.
Ironic? Two-faced? Foolish?
I'm not sure what the correct word is either. Maybe we should make one up. I propose the word 'kangdankermick'.
> Star Fury wrote:
>
> *decides doesn't really care*
>
> Aren't you being a little ironic, if that's the word?
>
> I mean, it's like people that go around saying "I'm insane I am!
> Completely crazy!"
>
> If you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying, and you would most
> certainly not be making the point so continously and obviously that
> you didn't care. If you didn't care you wouldn't reply at all.
>
> There's nothing wrong with caring, there's just a little something
> wrong with lying to cover up your tracks and to try and stay in
> control. It really won't help you in life.
Ironic? Two-faced? Foolish?
I'm not sure what the correct word is either. Maybe we should make one up. I propose the word 'kangdankermick'.
Star Fury wrote:
*decides doesn't really care*
Aren't you being a little ironic, if that's the word?
I mean, it's like people that go around saying "I'm insane I am! Completely crazy!"
If you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying, and you would most certainly not be making the point so continously and obviously that you didn't care. If you didn't care you wouldn't reply at all.
There's nothing wrong with caring, there's just a little something wrong with lying to cover up your tracks and to try and stay in control. It really won't help you in life.
*decides doesn't really care*
Aren't you being a little ironic, if that's the word?
I mean, it's like people that go around saying "I'm insane I am! Completely crazy!"
If you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying, and you would most certainly not be making the point so continously and obviously that you didn't care. If you didn't care you wouldn't reply at all.
There's nothing wrong with caring, there's just a little something wrong with lying to cover up your tracks and to try and stay in control. It really won't help you in life.
Jonman wrote:
> Come on Goaty, use a bit of imagination.
>
> *tuts*
Bill Hicks probably didn't cover this topic so he's a bit stuck.
NEWSFLASH - Bill Hicks was not a genius nor the owner of all wisdom, or the way to live your life.
> Come on Goaty, use a bit of imagination.
>
> *tuts*
Bill Hicks probably didn't cover this topic so he's a bit stuck.
NEWSFLASH - Bill Hicks was not a genius nor the owner of all wisdom, or the way to live your life.
> Kill yourself, do it.
> Do it on live television so I can witness the spectacle of a truly
> worthless human being ending yet another waste of organs and
> neurons.
Jiminy, if everyone who was a waste of space did that on TV, it'd be like those bloody telethons they used to have in the 80s where 9th rate celebrities do low-quality skits.
Anyway, there's a whole host of more interesting, amusing, or efficient ways to dispose of people who serve no purpose.
Firing them out of cannons into the ocean, for instance.
Burning them to generate electricity to power the world's biggest TV.
Doing a battle royale type affair, only with idiots instead of japanese schoolkids.
Come on Goaty, use a bit of imagination.
*tuts*
> Do it on live television so I can witness the spectacle of a truly
> worthless human being ending yet another waste of organs and
> neurons.
Jiminy, if everyone who was a waste of space did that on TV, it'd be like those bloody telethons they used to have in the 80s where 9th rate celebrities do low-quality skits.
Anyway, there's a whole host of more interesting, amusing, or efficient ways to dispose of people who serve no purpose.
Firing them out of cannons into the ocean, for instance.
Burning them to generate electricity to power the world's biggest TV.
Doing a battle royale type affair, only with idiots instead of japanese schoolkids.
Come on Goaty, use a bit of imagination.
*tuts*
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Come on though, it wasn't a 'test' at all though, was it? Admit that
> at least. And knowing Goatboy, I don't think he actually expected you
> to kill yourself, although he may protest otherwise.
Honestly, I wanted to see whether the usual "you are evil and demented for thinking like you do e.t.c." attitude changed, and surprise surprise it did once I posted in line with the majority - at that time - view on the forums. You post with the same attitude as Goatboy and Light and you're seen as intelligent, anything else and you're a mad American right wing christian fundamentalist......amongst other things.
The contradictions that the above two, and others, are showing by what they say are becoming more and more.
BTW Snuggly, just how bored are you that you're jumping in here ? You were right what you said earlier on this thread though, at that time I had gone, so all the crap people were posting wasn't being read by me ! :)
> Come on though, it wasn't a 'test' at all though, was it? Admit that
> at least. And knowing Goatboy, I don't think he actually expected you
> to kill yourself, although he may protest otherwise.
Honestly, I wanted to see whether the usual "you are evil and demented for thinking like you do e.t.c." attitude changed, and surprise surprise it did once I posted in line with the majority - at that time - view on the forums. You post with the same attitude as Goatboy and Light and you're seen as intelligent, anything else and you're a mad American right wing christian fundamentalist......amongst other things.
The contradictions that the above two, and others, are showing by what they say are becoming more and more.
BTW Snuggly, just how bored are you that you're jumping in here ? You were right what you said earlier on this thread though, at that time I had gone, so all the crap people were posting wasn't being read by me ! :)
Goatboy wrote:
> Kill yourself.
> Do it.
*Gets the Bill Hicks reference*
*Feels oddly warm inside*
Of course, it was a little uncomfortable watching Hicks do it. It doesn't get any easier...
You shaggy ol' thing
:^)
> Kill yourself.
> Do it.
*Gets the Bill Hicks reference*
*Feels oddly warm inside*
Of course, it was a little uncomfortable watching Hicks do it. It doesn't get any easier...
You shaggy ol' thing
:^)
Come on though, it wasn't a 'test' at all though, was it? Admit that at least. And knowing Goatboy, I don't think he actually expected you to kill yourself, although he may protest otherwise.
Black Glove wrote:
> And suggesting that someone should "kill themselves" because
> they have been hypocritical or contradicted themselves or been
> dishonest in their projection of opinions, well that says more about
> you than it does about the so-called hypocrite.
>
> Violent words from someone who is supposed to be so
> "anti-war".
My sentiments exactly.
*waits for Light/Goat boy's insult filled furious rebuttal*
*decides doesn't really care*
*goes back to trawling Ebay*
> And suggesting that someone should "kill themselves" because
> they have been hypocritical or contradicted themselves or been
> dishonest in their projection of opinions, well that says more about
> you than it does about the so-called hypocrite.
>
> Violent words from someone who is supposed to be so
> "anti-war".
My sentiments exactly.
*waits for Light/Goat boy's insult filled furious rebuttal*
*decides doesn't really care*
*goes back to trawling Ebay*
On Goatboy's nefarious diatribe against Star Fury:
I don't see what's wrong with changing your mind, then changing it back again - I do this everyday on all kinds of subjects.
And suggesting that someone should "kill themselves" because they have been hypocritical or contradicted themselves or been dishonest in their projection of opinions, well that says more about you than it does about the so-called hypocrite.
Violent words from someone who is supposed to be so "anti-war".
I don't see what's wrong with changing your mind, then changing it back again - I do this everyday on all kinds of subjects.
And suggesting that someone should "kill themselves" because they have been hypocritical or contradicted themselves or been dishonest in their projection of opinions, well that says more about you than it does about the so-called hypocrite.
Violent words from someone who is supposed to be so "anti-war".
Page: