The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Practical Magic wrote:
> Yup, I figure Light is an example to follow :P
Man...you really don't like being called to task do you?
Here's the thing Bell; I do it because I have the utmost contempt for you because you're a coward.
You're an intellectual coward; you post your theories and beliefs, but when pressed to back them up, you invariably whine "I can't be bothered", or "At uni I do my intellectual work, this doesn't count". When faced with an argument, you run away. And let's not forget about your "It was just a test" snivelling.
You're a moral coward; after all your posturing about how America was doing the 'right' thing morally in invading Iraq, you try and shrug off the news of Rumsfield's involvement in selling nuclear tech to North Korea. You don't even have the balls to apply your supposed ideals to what you think of as 'your' side.
You're an emotionally immature coward; how many times have you wailed "I'm leaving" before skulking back and desperately trying to pretend nothing has happened? Should anyone other than myself or Goatboy try to debate you, you tend to go for the "You're just saying it to agree with Light/Goatboy". Cos, y'know, no-one other than he or I would ever disagree with you, right?
You're gutless Belldandy. And like all cowards, you get angry and upset when someone bigger and nastier makes you look like the cowardly bully you are. So come on; prove me wrong and actually debate me on something. Or go through life bitter and lonely, blaming everyone else for everything rather than accepting that maybe, just maybe, you don't know it all.
> Yup, I figure Light is an example to follow :P
Man...you really don't like being called to task do you?
Here's the thing Bell; I do it because I have the utmost contempt for you because you're a coward.
You're an intellectual coward; you post your theories and beliefs, but when pressed to back them up, you invariably whine "I can't be bothered", or "At uni I do my intellectual work, this doesn't count". When faced with an argument, you run away. And let's not forget about your "It was just a test" snivelling.
You're a moral coward; after all your posturing about how America was doing the 'right' thing morally in invading Iraq, you try and shrug off the news of Rumsfield's involvement in selling nuclear tech to North Korea. You don't even have the balls to apply your supposed ideals to what you think of as 'your' side.
You're an emotionally immature coward; how many times have you wailed "I'm leaving" before skulking back and desperately trying to pretend nothing has happened? Should anyone other than myself or Goatboy try to debate you, you tend to go for the "You're just saying it to agree with Light/Goatboy". Cos, y'know, no-one other than he or I would ever disagree with you, right?
You're gutless Belldandy. And like all cowards, you get angry and upset when someone bigger and nastier makes you look like the cowardly bully you are. So come on; prove me wrong and actually debate me on something. Or go through life bitter and lonely, blaming everyone else for everything rather than accepting that maybe, just maybe, you don't know it all.
Yup, I figure Light is an example to follow :P
So sad you copied him and popped two threads of your own?
Ahem, that was in reply to the prostitution thread as you well know, fact is you're pretty sad to pop this...
Here we are...2 weeks in Tenerife eh Bell? Looks more like you got upset at not being taken seriously and ran off crying.
I only raise this as you seem incapable of accepting what happened, and seem to feel the need to...well, lie about it. Learn that trick from your idols in government did you?
Sweet dreams Bell.
I only raise this as you seem incapable of accepting what happened, and seem to feel the need to...well, lie about it. Learn that trick from your idols in government did you?
Sweet dreams Bell.
Belldandy wrote:
> Why do I only contribute links, and pointless crap with little thought
> ? Because it's not worth the effort. Anything I do just ends up with
> Light going off on an ego trip as usual so I see little point in
> putting any remote effort into posting.
Then why are you still here? If it's not worth the effort, why do you continually run off wailing "No fair!" only to come skulking back time after time after time after....
For something that's not worth the effort, you're putting in a lot of time here.
>
> There's plenty of topics I can think of - I'm surprised nobody has, as
> far as I can see - commented on last night's "Day That Britain
> Stopped". Has to be one of the better put together pieces of work
> the BBC has done for a while.
Apart of course from the thread in this forum about that very same program. Hmm...not like you to make a sweeping statement without actually having checked out the facts of it...
>
> As it is, I'm not the only one proclaiming to know all the answers on
> this forum...
Ah, this is BellDandy argument # 3d;
Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
For the record, I don't claim anything of the sort. I claim to know exactly what my opinion is on certain topics, and it's always instructive to know the opinion of others on the same thing. After all, they may have thought of something that you hadn't, leading to a change in opinion and an increase in ones knowledge. But I wouldn't really expect you to comprehend that.
> Goatboy, you wanted me to answer, and I did. What do I get back ?
> Crap. What's the point indeed...
You got questions raised about your answers, and the methodology that you used to arrive at your conclusion. What did you do? Shat your nappy and ran away crying and nursing your fractured ego. Quite pathetic and very, very expected.
>
> Au revoir.
See you in about 3 or 4 weeks.
>
> That's almost certainly spelt wrong, but what do I care, safe in the
> knowledge that Light is hitting refresh every minute just waiting to
> jump in with such literary creations as war w@nk e.t.c.
Ah, Belldandy argument #4; self-pitying scorn. And hey, didn't you just say goodbye? My word, that must be a new record; quitting the board and returning in the same thread...
Oh, can I take it then that you won't be responding on the Prostitution thread?
>
> I'm going to try prove Snuggly wrong, escape, forever. Have fun, and
> know that for all your ranting and complaining that it changes nothing
> whatsoever, the world still stays the same and you're just another
> angry paranoid person shaking his fist.
Really, please; prove him wrong. Your continued presence is an intellectual waste of time and an insult to the concept of debate. You spoke volumes in the Prostitution thread when you proudly proclaimed that "you won't change my mind, no matter what you say". That, more than anything, is the trademark of an insecure little bully, incapable of accepting any thoughts or ideas that don't originate from his own cavernously empty skull.
I can't speak for Goatboy, but my main motivation on this board the last few weeks has been to make it painfully clear to anyone who happens to be observing what an upsettingly ignorant simpleton you are. Not hugely difficult to do; all that was needed was to ask you to explain the reasons behind your beliefs. Had you proved me wrong and responded with justifications and the reasoning behind your beliefs, (rather than a mixture of dissertations you clearly didn't understand, scorn, and blank assertion with no reasoning behind it) I would have been left looking the fool.
Happily for me, you don't even know why you believe what you do. And unless The Sun runs an editorial explaining why you should believe the opinions you've grafted straight from tabloid to brain, you never will.
>
> ~~Bellendy~~
(couldn't resist....sorry everyone)
> Why do I only contribute links, and pointless crap with little thought
> ? Because it's not worth the effort. Anything I do just ends up with
> Light going off on an ego trip as usual so I see little point in
> putting any remote effort into posting.
Then why are you still here? If it's not worth the effort, why do you continually run off wailing "No fair!" only to come skulking back time after time after time after....
For something that's not worth the effort, you're putting in a lot of time here.
>
> There's plenty of topics I can think of - I'm surprised nobody has, as
> far as I can see - commented on last night's "Day That Britain
> Stopped". Has to be one of the better put together pieces of work
> the BBC has done for a while.
Apart of course from the thread in this forum about that very same program. Hmm...not like you to make a sweeping statement without actually having checked out the facts of it...
>
> As it is, I'm not the only one proclaiming to know all the answers on
> this forum...
Ah, this is BellDandy argument # 3d;
Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
For the record, I don't claim anything of the sort. I claim to know exactly what my opinion is on certain topics, and it's always instructive to know the opinion of others on the same thing. After all, they may have thought of something that you hadn't, leading to a change in opinion and an increase in ones knowledge. But I wouldn't really expect you to comprehend that.
> Goatboy, you wanted me to answer, and I did. What do I get back ?
> Crap. What's the point indeed...
You got questions raised about your answers, and the methodology that you used to arrive at your conclusion. What did you do? Shat your nappy and ran away crying and nursing your fractured ego. Quite pathetic and very, very expected.
>
> Au revoir.
See you in about 3 or 4 weeks.
>
> That's almost certainly spelt wrong, but what do I care, safe in the
> knowledge that Light is hitting refresh every minute just waiting to
> jump in with such literary creations as war w@nk e.t.c.
Ah, Belldandy argument #4; self-pitying scorn. And hey, didn't you just say goodbye? My word, that must be a new record; quitting the board and returning in the same thread...
Oh, can I take it then that you won't be responding on the Prostitution thread?
>
> I'm going to try prove Snuggly wrong, escape, forever. Have fun, and
> know that for all your ranting and complaining that it changes nothing
> whatsoever, the world still stays the same and you're just another
> angry paranoid person shaking his fist.
Really, please; prove him wrong. Your continued presence is an intellectual waste of time and an insult to the concept of debate. You spoke volumes in the Prostitution thread when you proudly proclaimed that "you won't change my mind, no matter what you say". That, more than anything, is the trademark of an insecure little bully, incapable of accepting any thoughts or ideas that don't originate from his own cavernously empty skull.
I can't speak for Goatboy, but my main motivation on this board the last few weeks has been to make it painfully clear to anyone who happens to be observing what an upsettingly ignorant simpleton you are. Not hugely difficult to do; all that was needed was to ask you to explain the reasons behind your beliefs. Had you proved me wrong and responded with justifications and the reasoning behind your beliefs, (rather than a mixture of dissertations you clearly didn't understand, scorn, and blank assertion with no reasoning behind it) I would have been left looking the fool.
Happily for me, you don't even know why you believe what you do. And unless The Sun runs an editorial explaining why you should believe the opinions you've grafted straight from tabloid to brain, you never will.
>
> ~~Bellendy~~
(couldn't resist....sorry everyone)
Why do I only contribute links, and pointless crap with little thought ? Because it's not worth the effort. Anything I do just ends up with Light going off on an ego trip as usual so I see little point in putting any remote effort into posting.
There's plenty of topics I can think of - I'm surprised nobody has, as far as I can see - commented on last night's "Day That Britain Stopped". Has to be one of the better put together pieces of work the BBC has done for a while.
As it is, I'm not the only one proclaiming to know all the answers on this forum...
Goatboy, you wanted me to answer, and I did. What do I get back ? Crap. What's the point indeed...
Au revoir.
That's almost certainly spelt wrong, but what do I care, safe in the knowledge that Light is hitting refresh every minute just waiting to jump in with such literary creations as war w@nk e.t.c.
I'm going to try prove Snuggly wrong, escape, forever. Have fun, and know that for all your ranting and complaining that it changes nothing whatsoever, the world still stays the same and you're just another angry paranoid person shaking his fist.
~~Belldandy~~
There's plenty of topics I can think of - I'm surprised nobody has, as far as I can see - commented on last night's "Day That Britain Stopped". Has to be one of the better put together pieces of work the BBC has done for a while.
As it is, I'm not the only one proclaiming to know all the answers on this forum...
Goatboy, you wanted me to answer, and I did. What do I get back ? Crap. What's the point indeed...
Au revoir.
That's almost certainly spelt wrong, but what do I care, safe in the knowledge that Light is hitting refresh every minute just waiting to jump in with such literary creations as war w@nk e.t.c.
I'm going to try prove Snuggly wrong, escape, forever. Have fun, and know that for all your ranting and complaining that it changes nothing whatsoever, the world still stays the same and you're just another angry paranoid person shaking his fist.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
>
> And, if Iraq was not involved in WMD, why was the media nicknamed
> "Dr Germ" in the country ? You don't want her running your
> healthcare system, thats for sure....
So let me see if I've got this right; we should be relying on The Sun to provide intelligence of WOMD? And that intelligence is based on what nicknames are given to the people in the regime?
Jesus Christ....that's weak even for you Bell.
Other than that, I concur with everything Goatboy has said in his reponse to your last post in this thread.
>
> And, if Iraq was not involved in WMD, why was the media nicknamed
> "Dr Germ" in the country ? You don't want her running your
> healthcare system, thats for sure....
So let me see if I've got this right; we should be relying on The Sun to provide intelligence of WOMD? And that intelligence is based on what nicknames are given to the people in the regime?
Jesus Christ....that's weak even for you Bell.
Other than that, I concur with everything Goatboy has said in his reponse to your last post in this thread.
An experiment?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Man, I should come to this thread more often.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Man, I should come to this thread more often.
Goatboy wrote:
> That took balls Bell and I 100% respect that.
---
This is the only comment I made in regards to your sudden switch.
To now say you mainly wrote it as an "experiment" negates it.
Light's right, you're not interested in having a debate for the sake of an exchange of ideas.
You want to argue point for point because it's about your ego. "I am right, I am right, I am right"
Which is why you will never let a topic go until you've had your say,despite your continual "That's it, I'm off" shouts.
What would I do about Hussein? Same thing you've done.
Absolutely nothing.
Dont kid yourself, you may support this action but you've actually done nothing but waste time in here.
Did you care about Iraq's horrible regime before Bush got a hardon? A regime that exists purely because The West installed him to counter Iran?
If you say you did, then what action did you, or have you ever taken apart from words? Because I've said it before and I'll say it again for clarity, unless you have strength of conviction to either write and express support, go to Number 10 and deliver a letter of support, go on a pro-war demo, join the Red Cross etc etc then all the hyperbole in the world means nothing. Another opinion on a poll.
I respected you for being willing to see a situation from another side, regardless of whether you agree. But you aren't ever even willing to take a sideways look at something if it disagrees with your version.
Nobody here attacks you for your beliefs Bell, they attack you because of your stubborn refusal, condemnation and sneering at ideals that differ from yours.
Again I repeat, I only ever offer my personal feelings on why I support/am against something, attempt to explain why.
Whereas you, apart from this one post - which you now claim was nothing more than a test - only ever contribute links and put zero reasoning or philosophy into *why* you feel something.
What you do isn't debate, it's cockwaving on a tedious scale and I'm bored with it. Have your last word, stroke your ego-***k and tell yourself "I sure showed them", doesn't matter mate.
I bow before your immense knowledge at everything from The Middle Eastern Crisis (which governments are unable to solve), to the legal mire of Prostitution to your current area of expertise, Ebola.
You're wasted here Bell, knit yourself a supersuit and save the world seeing as you have all the answers.
> That took balls Bell and I 100% respect that.
---
This is the only comment I made in regards to your sudden switch.
To now say you mainly wrote it as an "experiment" negates it.
Light's right, you're not interested in having a debate for the sake of an exchange of ideas.
You want to argue point for point because it's about your ego. "I am right, I am right, I am right"
Which is why you will never let a topic go until you've had your say,despite your continual "That's it, I'm off" shouts.
What would I do about Hussein? Same thing you've done.
Absolutely nothing.
Dont kid yourself, you may support this action but you've actually done nothing but waste time in here.
Did you care about Iraq's horrible regime before Bush got a hardon? A regime that exists purely because The West installed him to counter Iran?
If you say you did, then what action did you, or have you ever taken apart from words? Because I've said it before and I'll say it again for clarity, unless you have strength of conviction to either write and express support, go to Number 10 and deliver a letter of support, go on a pro-war demo, join the Red Cross etc etc then all the hyperbole in the world means nothing. Another opinion on a poll.
I respected you for being willing to see a situation from another side, regardless of whether you agree. But you aren't ever even willing to take a sideways look at something if it disagrees with your version.
Nobody here attacks you for your beliefs Bell, they attack you because of your stubborn refusal, condemnation and sneering at ideals that differ from yours.
Again I repeat, I only ever offer my personal feelings on why I support/am against something, attempt to explain why.
Whereas you, apart from this one post - which you now claim was nothing more than a test - only ever contribute links and put zero reasoning or philosophy into *why* you feel something.
What you do isn't debate, it's cockwaving on a tedious scale and I'm bored with it. Have your last word, stroke your ego-***k and tell yourself "I sure showed them", doesn't matter mate.
I bow before your immense knowledge at everything from The Middle Eastern Crisis (which governments are unable to solve), to the legal mire of Prostitution to your current area of expertise, Ebola.
You're wasted here Bell, knit yourself a supersuit and save the world seeing as you have all the answers.
Page: