The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Star Fury wrote:
> Even if Iraqi's were to
> fire chemical weapons at our guys then you'd still defend them ! If
> London were to be incinerated in a nuclear blast then we'd still have
> people swearing blind that the UK was under no terrorist threat.
That's crap and you know it.
> Drugs? Who care ? You're not entering that debate with an open mind, you
> want to take drugs and you want someone to tell you it's okay despite
> your own reassurances to yourself. You want to take them ? Take them,
> end of story.
As far as I can remember, I pretty much agreed with Light in that topic and I never have taken drugs, now have any desire to.
> And before you say this is incoherent rambling, which it is, ask
> yourself is it worth it ? Because it isn't.
No, it's coherent rambling. Like most of your posts. Only more speedy.
> I know in my own mind what
> I truly believe, and nothing that someone I've never seen ,or really
> known, types is going to change that.
Well for a start I think we all know that. The enormity of that on every single subject you talk about has only become apparent to me since my topic about Korea's nuclear power (which I just left alone because it became obvious that you weren't listening to anything I was saying - in case you were wondering). And it seems like I was late to the party.
However, I have actually seen Light take my points on board and come up with a convincing retort. I'm not sasying you're incapable of that, but I just haven't seen any examples of it yet.
> When we look to the real world, despite the protests, despite
> everything, we're going to war because we have to, and because it is
> right,
...why? Why do we have to? Why is it right? This government has been rejecting asylum seekers from Iraq for years, and now they claim that Saddam's tyrannical rule has been going on for too long? They can't really have both.
> and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically.
> Notice how the MPs whom the anti war lobby said would do their duty by
> voting against the government have over night been demonised because
> they failed to do so, and voted in support.
Well that shows ficklety on the part of the MP's, which isn't really anything to do with it.
> Even if Iraqi's were to
> fire chemical weapons at our guys then you'd still defend them ! If
> London were to be incinerated in a nuclear blast then we'd still have
> people swearing blind that the UK was under no terrorist threat.
That's crap and you know it.
> Drugs? Who care ? You're not entering that debate with an open mind, you
> want to take drugs and you want someone to tell you it's okay despite
> your own reassurances to yourself. You want to take them ? Take them,
> end of story.
As far as I can remember, I pretty much agreed with Light in that topic and I never have taken drugs, now have any desire to.
> And before you say this is incoherent rambling, which it is, ask
> yourself is it worth it ? Because it isn't.
No, it's coherent rambling. Like most of your posts. Only more speedy.
> I know in my own mind what
> I truly believe, and nothing that someone I've never seen ,or really
> known, types is going to change that.
Well for a start I think we all know that. The enormity of that on every single subject you talk about has only become apparent to me since my topic about Korea's nuclear power (which I just left alone because it became obvious that you weren't listening to anything I was saying - in case you were wondering). And it seems like I was late to the party.
However, I have actually seen Light take my points on board and come up with a convincing retort. I'm not sasying you're incapable of that, but I just haven't seen any examples of it yet.
> When we look to the real world, despite the protests, despite
> everything, we're going to war because we have to, and because it is
> right,
...why? Why do we have to? Why is it right? This government has been rejecting asylum seekers from Iraq for years, and now they claim that Saddam's tyrannical rule has been going on for too long? They can't really have both.
> and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically.
> Notice how the MPs whom the anti war lobby said would do their duty by
> voting against the government have over night been demonised because
> they failed to do so, and voted in support.
Well that shows ficklety on the part of the MP's, which isn't really anything to do with it.
Star Fury wrote:
> The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want
> peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing.
That is one of the most foolish things I've read on these forums for a long long time. Neither the pro-war or anti-war folks want 'appeasement'.
> The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want
> peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing.
That is one of the most foolish things I've read on these forums for a long long time. Neither the pro-war or anti-war folks want 'appeasement'.
This is what I'm talking about:
----Original post:
"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."
Today's response:
"we're going to war because we have to, and because it is right, and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically."
---
Original post:
"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."
Today's response:
"The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing."
---
Original post:
"Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then."
Today's response:
"France, Germany e.t.c are idiots who need history lessons, but France is well experienced in shynig away from it's responsibilities so we should have guessed that it would do this"
-----
Absolutely contrasting thoughts.
Yet you expect to be taken seriously, and have your ideas respected when you are unable to commit to a standpoint and remain steady?
I find it saddening that somebody can switch-hit their views so easily, as it indicates no real passion or honest belief in what you say.
I used to think you were worth respecting, however differing your beliefs, however I cannot put any worth in a man that refuses to take a side and stand firm.
Shame on you for fence hopping.
----Original post:
"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."
Today's response:
"we're going to war because we have to, and because it is right, and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically."
---
Original post:
"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."
Today's response:
"The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing."
---
Original post:
"Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then."
Today's response:
"France, Germany e.t.c are idiots who need history lessons, but France is well experienced in shynig away from it's responsibilities so we should have guessed that it would do this"
-----
Absolutely contrasting thoughts.
Yet you expect to be taken seriously, and have your ideas respected when you are unable to commit to a standpoint and remain steady?
I find it saddening that somebody can switch-hit their views so easily, as it indicates no real passion or honest belief in what you say.
I used to think you were worth respecting, however differing your beliefs, however I cannot put any worth in a man that refuses to take a side and stand firm.
Shame on you for fence hopping.
Sorry Bell but you haven't answered my question.
How can you post this, and mere days later suddenly reverse your entire thought process?
Read it back to yourself and then read your posts of today and yesterday.
You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the right thing", yet have offered no explanation how a person can suddenly change their opinion so vociferously.
What was it that caused your change?
I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can rabidly defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here claim that you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq is not the way forward....and then switch again to being 100% supportive and dismissing those that oppose again?
It makes no sense.
And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your beliefs.
Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have remained 100% consistent from day one.
Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and support that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet wakes up.
Please explain how you can veer between opinions and beliefs so drastically with 180 degree changes of mind so easily?
Nevermind spatting with Light, I'd like you to explain my points above to me.
How can you post this, and mere days later suddenly reverse your entire thought process?
Read it back to yourself and then read your posts of today and yesterday.
You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the right thing", yet have offered no explanation how a person can suddenly change their opinion so vociferously.
What was it that caused your change?
I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can rabidly defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here claim that you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq is not the way forward....and then switch again to being 100% supportive and dismissing those that oppose again?
It makes no sense.
And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your beliefs.
Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have remained 100% consistent from day one.
Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and support that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet wakes up.
Please explain how you can veer between opinions and beliefs so drastically with 180 degree changes of mind so easily?
Nevermind spatting with Light, I'd like you to explain my points above to me.
Light wrote:
> *Joins the group waiting for the explaination*
>
> But if I'm honest, I don't expect much more than another episode
> whereby a disgruntled Woolworth's employee picks up his ball and
> refuses to play any more whilst firing off what he believes to be
> scathing comments about how "everyone here agrees with each
> other".
>
> And why don't I expect anything more than that? Probably because I've
> argued with Bell's type a million times before; if The Sun and Tom
> Clancy don't give him an opinion to spout, he's lost and alone. Which
> is a shame, because the initial post in this thread indicated someone
> who did have a functioning mind of his own.
To be quite honest Light I'm totally fed up of you, because you have the belief the sun shines out of your little behind, you're pompous, more sneering than I could ever manage, throw more insults around than all in FOG Chat put together, and are possibly the most short sighted, self absorbed person on here. In short, you batter anyone who disagrees with you with rhetorical questions, avoid your own flaws in your own arguments, and are generally about the least interesting person on here. Plus your bizarre Woolworths fixation....
Scathing comments ? Sure, but ask yourself, do I care ? In fact I wouldn't care if I was banned right now. Not because I can't discuss points here, but because it's totally tedious. We make no difference, we change no ones minds, we discuss nothing fairly (hell this isn't even possible in real life most of the time so no surprise there...), we waste vast amounts of time for nothing. Even if Iraqi's were to fire chemical weapons at our guys then you'd still defend them ! If London were to be incinerated in a nuclear blast then we'd still have people swearing blind that the UK was under no terrorist threat. Drugs ? Who care ? You're not entering that debate with an open mind, you want to take drugs and you want someone to tell you it's okay despite your own reassurances to yourself. You want to take them ? Take them, end of story.
And before you say this is incoherent rambling, which it is, ask yourself is it worth it ? Because it isn't. I know in my own mind what I truly believe, and nothing that someone I've never seen ,or really known, types is going to change that.
You want to make assumptions about me ? Go ahead, I have my own about you and I suspect both of us would be wrong about them if we met face to face, but who cares ? You're obviously right.......
When we look to the real world, despite the protests, despite everything, we're going to war because we have to, and because it is right, and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically. Notice how the MPs whom the anti war lobby said would do their duty by voting against the government have over night been demonised because they failed to do so, and voted in support.
The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing.
> *Joins the group waiting for the explaination*
>
> But if I'm honest, I don't expect much more than another episode
> whereby a disgruntled Woolworth's employee picks up his ball and
> refuses to play any more whilst firing off what he believes to be
> scathing comments about how "everyone here agrees with each
> other".
>
> And why don't I expect anything more than that? Probably because I've
> argued with Bell's type a million times before; if The Sun and Tom
> Clancy don't give him an opinion to spout, he's lost and alone. Which
> is a shame, because the initial post in this thread indicated someone
> who did have a functioning mind of his own.
To be quite honest Light I'm totally fed up of you, because you have the belief the sun shines out of your little behind, you're pompous, more sneering than I could ever manage, throw more insults around than all in FOG Chat put together, and are possibly the most short sighted, self absorbed person on here. In short, you batter anyone who disagrees with you with rhetorical questions, avoid your own flaws in your own arguments, and are generally about the least interesting person on here. Plus your bizarre Woolworths fixation....
Scathing comments ? Sure, but ask yourself, do I care ? In fact I wouldn't care if I was banned right now. Not because I can't discuss points here, but because it's totally tedious. We make no difference, we change no ones minds, we discuss nothing fairly (hell this isn't even possible in real life most of the time so no surprise there...), we waste vast amounts of time for nothing. Even if Iraqi's were to fire chemical weapons at our guys then you'd still defend them ! If London were to be incinerated in a nuclear blast then we'd still have people swearing blind that the UK was under no terrorist threat. Drugs ? Who care ? You're not entering that debate with an open mind, you want to take drugs and you want someone to tell you it's okay despite your own reassurances to yourself. You want to take them ? Take them, end of story.
And before you say this is incoherent rambling, which it is, ask yourself is it worth it ? Because it isn't. I know in my own mind what I truly believe, and nothing that someone I've never seen ,or really known, types is going to change that.
You want to make assumptions about me ? Go ahead, I have my own about you and I suspect both of us would be wrong about them if we met face to face, but who cares ? You're obviously right.......
When we look to the real world, despite the protests, despite everything, we're going to war because we have to, and because it is right, and there is real backing for it both publicly and politically. Notice how the MPs whom the anti war lobby said would do their duty by voting against the government have over night been demonised because they failed to do so, and voted in support.
The anti-war lobby is wrong, I firmly believe that. They don't want peace, they want appeasement. That's not the same thing.
Because we are mere hours away from something which will reveal Iraq's regime for what it is. And Light, get over the Woolworths thing, I DONT BLOODY WORK THERE FOR ABOUT THE FIFTIETH TIME!
Ahem...This may not be the best way, but to be honest it is now the only way, hence I support it. France, Germany e.t.c are idiots who need history lessons, but France is well experienced in shynig away from it's responsibilities so we should have guessed that it would do this. The moment those three said they would veto ANY resolution was the moment I changed my mind. 100% Backing, all the way.
Incidentally if you want to foucs on anything, why will France help if Iraq uses WMDs, when it has said it has none ? Hmmm.....also the VX report given to Hans Blix, in his own words, contained nothing new, more deception, more lies.
This is the only way to get rid of Saddam.
Here's hoping for a short, fast, pinpoint war with the minimum of civilian casualties and the minimum of military personnel killed or injured on both sides.
Ahem...This may not be the best way, but to be honest it is now the only way, hence I support it. France, Germany e.t.c are idiots who need history lessons, but France is well experienced in shynig away from it's responsibilities so we should have guessed that it would do this. The moment those three said they would veto ANY resolution was the moment I changed my mind. 100% Backing, all the way.
Incidentally if you want to foucs on anything, why will France help if Iraq uses WMDs, when it has said it has none ? Hmmm.....also the VX report given to Hans Blix, in his own words, contained nothing new, more deception, more lies.
This is the only way to get rid of Saddam.
Here's hoping for a short, fast, pinpoint war with the minimum of civilian casualties and the minimum of military personnel killed or injured on both sides.
A complete 360, with a pause half through the cycle.
C'mon, Bell where are you?
C'mon, Bell where are you?
*pop*
It would appear that Belldandy has decided not to post.
I'm not being smug or arsey, I'm interested as to how you can swerve 180 degrees, then go right back in the space of 2 weeks.
Either you are privy to new evidence of actualy WOMD being discovered or your beliefs are based on whimsy and you backed yourself into a corner and cannot justify both your earlier attitudes, this post apologising and claiming you changed your heart and your sudden re-emergence into a forum you have twice claimed to be "leaving" wearing Stars and Stripes pants over your head to obscure your vision so utterly.
It would appear that Belldandy has decided not to post.
I'm not being smug or arsey, I'm interested as to how you can swerve 180 degrees, then go right back in the space of 2 weeks.
Either you are privy to new evidence of actualy WOMD being discovered or your beliefs are based on whimsy and you backed yourself into a corner and cannot justify both your earlier attitudes, this post apologising and claiming you changed your heart and your sudden re-emergence into a forum you have twice claimed to be "leaving" wearing Stars and Stripes pants over your head to obscure your vision so utterly.
It's Claire Short!
*Joins the group waiting for the explaination*
But if I'm honest, I don't expect much more than another episode whereby a disgruntled Woolworth's employee picks up his ball and refuses to play any more whilst firing off what he believes to be scathing comments about how "everyone here agrees with each other".
And why don't I expect anything more than that? Probably because I've argued with Bell's type a million times before; if The Sun and Tom Clancy don't give him an opinion to spout, he's lost and alone. Which is a shame, because the initial post in this thread indicated someone who did have a functioning mind of his own.
But if I'm honest, I don't expect much more than another episode whereby a disgruntled Woolworth's employee picks up his ball and refuses to play any more whilst firing off what he believes to be scathing comments about how "everyone here agrees with each other".
And why don't I expect anything more than that? Probably because I've argued with Bell's type a million times before; if The Sun and Tom Clancy don't give him an opinion to spout, he's lost and alone. Which is a shame, because the initial post in this thread indicated someone who did have a functioning mind of his own.
Page: