The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Grix Thraves wrote:
Perhaps he IS indecisive and rushes to
> judgement quickly. Help him learn that, don't just beat him down.
---
Perhaps.
But when one acts as he has done, reaming out streams of facts and figures, nitpicking over any post at all to do with America/Iraq/Terrorism and purposely belittling others for expressing opposing views, then I take issue.
Having an opinion is one thing, constantly sneering at others for theirs whilst refusing to listen to weeks of arguments only to them change his mind and refute his previous statements that he once held so dear, to then return to superior decrying is not changing your mind.
It is acting without thought or reason, choosing a side and shouting "I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT" at everyone, these are the reasons I await a response.
But he chooses to lurk instead of acting with dignity and simply responding to my original two-post questions a few posts down.
I asked reasonable, emotion free questions asking him to explain his about-face and back again and, as yet, have not been replied to.
To believe is one thing, to lecture, patronise and insult others for their view is another.
Whatever I may believe, I only ever state my beliefs and why I feel that way.
Perhaps he IS indecisive and rushes to
> judgement quickly. Help him learn that, don't just beat him down.
---
Perhaps.
But when one acts as he has done, reaming out streams of facts and figures, nitpicking over any post at all to do with America/Iraq/Terrorism and purposely belittling others for expressing opposing views, then I take issue.
Having an opinion is one thing, constantly sneering at others for theirs whilst refusing to listen to weeks of arguments only to them change his mind and refute his previous statements that he once held so dear, to then return to superior decrying is not changing your mind.
It is acting without thought or reason, choosing a side and shouting "I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT I AM RIGHT" at everyone, these are the reasons I await a response.
But he chooses to lurk instead of acting with dignity and simply responding to my original two-post questions a few posts down.
I asked reasonable, emotion free questions asking him to explain his about-face and back again and, as yet, have not been replied to.
To believe is one thing, to lecture, patronise and insult others for their view is another.
Whatever I may believe, I only ever state my beliefs and why I feel that way.
Ah ok. Doing a 180 (well, 360 now surely) without explaining the reasons behind the rapid and elaborate changes of heart is a bit silly, I guess.
I'll leave this thread to wallow in Light hearted (hehe) bickering.
I'll leave this thread to wallow in Light hearted (hehe) bickering.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I'm not going to pretend to have read this thread in its entirety, but
> would I be right to assume that Light practically bullied Bell into
> changing his opinion on the war, only to then pick holes in his view
> anyway until Bell left the Life forum permanently?
Your words > my words
> I'm not going to pretend to have read this thread in its entirety, but
> would I be right to assume that Light practically bullied Bell into
> changing his opinion on the war, only to then pick holes in his view
> anyway until Bell left the Life forum permanently?
Your words > my words
Nope.
Bell posted his original thread (see above) declaring his change of heart and mind, condemning Bush for his war lust and saying how wrong he had been.
Then, a couple of weeks later, he's back to belittling anyone that says the war is wrong and saying "it is right to do this", without offering explanation as to how and why he changed his mind again.
I call him a honourless man of no real opinion, prone to changing his mind depending on the mood of the nation and spewing refectory invective without giving it due thought.
And I am yet to hear his reasons for this 180 degree change of mind.
Bell posted his original thread (see above) declaring his change of heart and mind, condemning Bush for his war lust and saying how wrong he had been.
Then, a couple of weeks later, he's back to belittling anyone that says the war is wrong and saying "it is right to do this", without offering explanation as to how and why he changed his mind again.
I call him a honourless man of no real opinion, prone to changing his mind depending on the mood of the nation and spewing refectory invective without giving it due thought.
And I am yet to hear his reasons for this 180 degree change of mind.
Goatboy wrote:
"I cannot put any worth in a man that refuses to take a side and stand firm."
Sometimes I think I know the answer and then realise I'm completely wrong... so I find another answer and I think that's right too... and it keeps going and going and I tend not to learn until I realise what I'm doing, then I stop, think for a bit, look at all the options before making a decision, then make every effort to stick to it.
Don't be too hard on blokeyperson here. If you want to teach him something, teach him it's best to look at all the information before making a decision. Don't teach him it's wrong to have an opinion, because even though you're probably not meaning to, it's how it's sounding.
This is a forum of believes, of people and their viewpoints. Chasing someone out like what you're doing now because they've made a few mistakes, I think is unfair. Perhaps he IS indecisive and rushes to judgement quickly. Help him learn that, don't just beat him down.
Just my view.
"I cannot put any worth in a man that refuses to take a side and stand firm."
Sometimes I think I know the answer and then realise I'm completely wrong... so I find another answer and I think that's right too... and it keeps going and going and I tend not to learn until I realise what I'm doing, then I stop, think for a bit, look at all the options before making a decision, then make every effort to stick to it.
Don't be too hard on blokeyperson here. If you want to teach him something, teach him it's best to look at all the information before making a decision. Don't teach him it's wrong to have an opinion, because even though you're probably not meaning to, it's how it's sounding.
This is a forum of believes, of people and their viewpoints. Chasing someone out like what you're doing now because they've made a few mistakes, I think is unfair. Perhaps he IS indecisive and rushes to judgement quickly. Help him learn that, don't just beat him down.
Just my view.
I'm not going to pretend to have read this thread in its entirety, but would I be right to assume that Light practically bullied Bell into changing his opinion on the war, only to then pick holes in his view anyway until Bell left the Life forum permanently?
Woolworths
*pop*
Still nothing Bell? Reduced to hit and run rattle throwing now are we?
May I ask you something? Even if one were to accept that everything you accuse me of is true, would that render all the things said to and about you invalid? If I were what you say I am, does that mean you are not the blinkered and ignorant tubthumper that you are accused of being?
I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the queries that have been put to you, or whether you'll prove me right and resort to tantrums and namecalling.
Oh, and by the way; I keep bringing up the Woolies thing because...well, because it winds you up. Which I find funny.
May I ask you something? Even if one were to accept that everything you accuse me of is true, would that render all the things said to and about you invalid? If I were what you say I am, does that mean you are not the blinkered and ignorant tubthumper that you are accused of being?
I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the queries that have been put to you, or whether you'll prove me right and resort to tantrums and namecalling.
Oh, and by the way; I keep bringing up the Woolies thing because...well, because it winds you up. Which I find funny.
Amazing, isn't it Bell; you belittle every post that disagree's with you, yet all it took was a couple of posts gently ribbing you and you explode into a frenzy of foaming and ranting.
So, for the record, why don't you leave your petulant digs at me behind. Frankly I only had a go because I wanted to provoke you into a response. And I've done so. So now that you're reading the board, why not respond to some of the questions posed to you by Goatboy et al.
So, for the record, why don't you leave your petulant digs at me behind. Frankly I only had a go because I wanted to provoke you into a response. And I've done so. So now that you're reading the board, why not respond to some of the questions posed to you by Goatboy et al.
Page: