The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> Star Fury wrote:
>
>
>
> Summary of Light's posts:
>
> "You are always wrong. I am always right. I shall repeat my own
> bland statements which carefully skirt around the issues which make
> them redundant. In addition I shall still call you Bell, making me
> look like a mongol for there is no such user anymore. In addition I
> will occasionally fixate over a job that the person who I still call
> Bell has no had for eight months. Despite overwhelming evidence I
> will
> not admit that, as the war's aims included regime change, and I
> opposed the war, that this actually supported Saddam's legitimacy. I
> will argue that Saddam could have been removed in other ways,
> despite
> their being no documented historic example of such a dictator being
> peacefully removed along with all those around him. I will bleat on
> about Iraqi civilian casualties, which pale into insignificance when
> compared to those Saddam killed under his own regime, but I will
> ignore that fact, every time. If anyone should challenge me then
> they
> are obviously deserving of public school boy style insults that only
> the retarded find funny, I shall also use the wisdom of Bill Hicks
> as
> if he were the international relations genius. Lo, should anyone
> again
> challenge this view then they are obviously dumb, as everyone who
> ever
> challenges such virtuos liberal ideas is. I repeat, if you do not
> agree with me then you are dumb. Also, should you not reply to my
> posts instantly, despite that fact I myself postinfrequently, then
> my
> arguments have obviously sent you running for cover because I
> believe
> you care, when in fact you could really be doing something
> productive.
> Note, my posts are always perfectly word formatted with no mistakes,
> hence if you should make a typing error in your reply you are also
> dumb. Finally, I shall endevour to make my posts take considerable
> time to read, and I will fail to make clear concise points, or reply
> without insults of said previous nature."
>
> Thankyou and Goodnight.
>
>
> Heh. I was going to post something fairly detailed, but I think I can
> cover what you've said with:
>
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
>
>
> Truce? My dear Bell, that implies that there was a challenge in the
> first place. The only reason you're 'bored' with this is because
> you're being shown up as the mindless little warwank that
Yeah great Light, everyone else leaves it be but, oh no, the great Light returns and carries on......
You're looking just as bad as me, except you don't realise it.
> Star Fury wrote:
>
>
>
> Summary of Light's posts:
>
> "You are always wrong. I am always right. I shall repeat my own
> bland statements which carefully skirt around the issues which make
> them redundant. In addition I shall still call you Bell, making me
> look like a mongol for there is no such user anymore. In addition I
> will occasionally fixate over a job that the person who I still call
> Bell has no had for eight months. Despite overwhelming evidence I
> will
> not admit that, as the war's aims included regime change, and I
> opposed the war, that this actually supported Saddam's legitimacy. I
> will argue that Saddam could have been removed in other ways,
> despite
> their being no documented historic example of such a dictator being
> peacefully removed along with all those around him. I will bleat on
> about Iraqi civilian casualties, which pale into insignificance when
> compared to those Saddam killed under his own regime, but I will
> ignore that fact, every time. If anyone should challenge me then
> they
> are obviously deserving of public school boy style insults that only
> the retarded find funny, I shall also use the wisdom of Bill Hicks
> as
> if he were the international relations genius. Lo, should anyone
> again
> challenge this view then they are obviously dumb, as everyone who
> ever
> challenges such virtuos liberal ideas is. I repeat, if you do not
> agree with me then you are dumb. Also, should you not reply to my
> posts instantly, despite that fact I myself postinfrequently, then
> my
> arguments have obviously sent you running for cover because I
> believe
> you care, when in fact you could really be doing something
> productive.
> Note, my posts are always perfectly word formatted with no mistakes,
> hence if you should make a typing error in your reply you are also
> dumb. Finally, I shall endevour to make my posts take considerable
> time to read, and I will fail to make clear concise points, or reply
> without insults of said previous nature."
>
> Thankyou and Goodnight.
>
>
> Heh. I was going to post something fairly detailed, but I think I can
> cover what you've said with:
>
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
>
>
> Truce? My dear Bell, that implies that there was a challenge in the
> first place. The only reason you're 'bored' with this is because
> you're being shown up as the mindless little warwank that
Yeah great Light, everyone else leaves it be but, oh no, the great Light returns and carries on......
You're looking just as bad as me, except you don't realise it.
Star Fury wrote:
>
> Summary of Light's posts:
>
> "You are always wrong. I am always right. I shall repeat my own
> bland statements which carefully skirt around the issues which make
> them redundant. In addition I shall still call you Bell, making me
> look like a mongol for there is no such user anymore. In addition I
> will occasionally fixate over a job that the person who I still call
> Bell has no had for eight months. Despite overwhelming evidence I will
> not admit that, as the war's aims included regime change, and I
> opposed the war, that this actually supported Saddam's legitimacy. I
> will argue that Saddam could have been removed in other ways, despite
> their being no documented historic example of such a dictator being
> peacefully removed along with all those around him. I will bleat on
> about Iraqi civilian casualties, which pale into insignificance when
> compared to those Saddam killed under his own regime, but I will
> ignore that fact, every time. If anyone should challenge me then they
> are obviously deserving of public school boy style insults that only
> the retarded find funny, I shall also use the wisdom of Bill Hicks as
> if he were the international relations genius. Lo, should anyone again
> challenge this view then they are obviously dumb, as everyone who ever
> challenges such virtuos liberal ideas is. I repeat, if you do not
> agree with me then you are dumb. Also, should you not reply to my
> posts instantly, despite that fact I myself postinfrequently, then my
> arguments have obviously sent you running for cover because I believe
> you care, when in fact you could really be doing something productive.
> Note, my posts are always perfectly word formatted with no mistakes,
> hence if you should make a typing error in your reply you are also
> dumb. Finally, I shall endevour to make my posts take considerable
> time to read, and I will fail to make clear concise points, or reply
> without insults of said previous nature."
>
> Thankyou and Goodnight.
Heh. I was going to post something fairly detailed, but I think I can cover what you've said with:
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
Truce? My dear Bell, that implies that there was a challenge in the first place. The only reason you're 'bored' with this is because you're being shown up as the mindless little warwank that
>
> Summary of Light's posts:
>
> "You are always wrong. I am always right. I shall repeat my own
> bland statements which carefully skirt around the issues which make
> them redundant. In addition I shall still call you Bell, making me
> look like a mongol for there is no such user anymore. In addition I
> will occasionally fixate over a job that the person who I still call
> Bell has no had for eight months. Despite overwhelming evidence I will
> not admit that, as the war's aims included regime change, and I
> opposed the war, that this actually supported Saddam's legitimacy. I
> will argue that Saddam could have been removed in other ways, despite
> their being no documented historic example of such a dictator being
> peacefully removed along with all those around him. I will bleat on
> about Iraqi civilian casualties, which pale into insignificance when
> compared to those Saddam killed under his own regime, but I will
> ignore that fact, every time. If anyone should challenge me then they
> are obviously deserving of public school boy style insults that only
> the retarded find funny, I shall also use the wisdom of Bill Hicks as
> if he were the international relations genius. Lo, should anyone again
> challenge this view then they are obviously dumb, as everyone who ever
> challenges such virtuos liberal ideas is. I repeat, if you do not
> agree with me then you are dumb. Also, should you not reply to my
> posts instantly, despite that fact I myself postinfrequently, then my
> arguments have obviously sent you running for cover because I believe
> you care, when in fact you could really be doing something productive.
> Note, my posts are always perfectly word formatted with no mistakes,
> hence if you should make a typing error in your reply you are also
> dumb. Finally, I shall endevour to make my posts take considerable
> time to read, and I will fail to make clear concise points, or reply
> without insults of said previous nature."
>
> Thankyou and Goodnight.
Heh. I was going to post something fairly detailed, but I think I can cover what you've said with:
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
Truce? My dear Bell, that implies that there was a challenge in the first place. The only reason you're 'bored' with this is because you're being shown up as the mindless little warwank that
...And probably still less preferable than a talk about Salem ;^)
Star Fury wrote:
> The difference being that was a fictional play and this is real life,
> or at least might have been fictional. A discussion of the Salem Witch
> Trials would be infinitely preferable to this topic....
Though it was based on the McCarthy communist investigations in America in the '50s.
How relevant that is would be a matter of opinion of course.
> The difference being that was a fictional play and this is real life,
> or at least might have been fictional. A discussion of the Salem Witch
> Trials would be infinitely preferable to this topic....
Though it was based on the McCarthy communist investigations in America in the '50s.
How relevant that is would be a matter of opinion of course.
Saddam Hussein wrote:
> Mwahaha!
Saaaddaaammm!!!
*shakes fist in air*
> Mwahaha!
Saaaddaaammm!!!
*shakes fist in air*
Mwahaha!
Dr Duck wrote:
> Star Fury wrote:
> What do the innocent have to hide ?
>
>
> I'm sure I heard that line in The Crucible a couple of nights ago...
The difference being that was a fictional play and this is real life, or at least might have been fictional. A discussion of the Salem Witch Trials would be infinitely preferable to this topic....
> Star Fury wrote:
> What do the innocent have to hide ?
>
>
> I'm sure I heard that line in The Crucible a couple of nights ago...
The difference being that was a fictional play and this is real life, or at least might have been fictional. A discussion of the Salem Witch Trials would be infinitely preferable to this topic....
OK, Star Fury, let's put it this way:
Saddam - kills hundreds of thousands of innocents - therefore, and rightly, EVIL.
George W Bush - captures about a thousand prisoners a an attack on Afghanis**tan (an attack that many people have called a WAR agains**t the ruling Taliban forces) and keeps them awake, down on their knees, blinded by a blindfold, unable to hear anything, banned from obeying by their religion - but, let us not forget, this is AMERICA - therefore it's all nice and legal, because Uncle Sam's the bigges**t dog in the yard, and George Bush is jus**t protecting the country.
Oh, and one other thing, Star Fury - how would YOU deal with North Korea? After all, we've beaten the sh*t out of the Iraqis' homeland, so what do you propose to do with the next target on Dubya's lis**t?
Saddam - kills hundreds of thousands of innocents - therefore, and rightly, EVIL.
George W Bush - captures about a thousand prisoners a an attack on Afghanis**tan (an attack that many people have called a WAR agains**t the ruling Taliban forces) and keeps them awake, down on their knees, blinded by a blindfold, unable to hear anything, banned from obeying by their religion - but, let us not forget, this is AMERICA - therefore it's all nice and legal, because Uncle Sam's the bigges**t dog in the yard, and George Bush is jus**t protecting the country.
Oh, and one other thing, Star Fury - how would YOU deal with North Korea? After all, we've beaten the sh*t out of the Iraqis' homeland, so what do you propose to do with the next target on Dubya's lis**t?
Not being rude here, but doesn't this belong in another forum? :P
Star Fury wrote:
> What do the innocent have to hide ?
I'm sure I heard that line in The Crucible a couple of nights ago...
> What do the innocent have to hide ?
I'm sure I heard that line in The Crucible a couple of nights ago...
Page: