The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Jesus Christ, lads, relax. While you lads were arguing about this last night, I was watching the first Animatrix. Surely that's a much better use of your time?
Red Jim wrote:
> It's points like this I'd like to raise issue with. The fact is that
> 'your man' that you've captured is, in fact, retired. Hilarious as it
> may sound, the guy stopped his war on the West a long time ago, and
> renounced terrorism. The guy's intelligence is 12 years old. 12
> YEARS! How much have you learned in 12 years? Quite a lot, one would
> hope. What can we get from him, hmm?
Okay Jim, the fact he is supposedly retired is a mute point. Did tehe hunt for Nazi war criminals end when they reached retiring age ? No, they are even now still being searched for and traced by various NGO's. A crime is a crime and you don't get immunity based on age. As for intelligence, I somehow don't think you stop being a terrorist with a clikc of the fingers. He will know people, and information which may seem unimportant but could fit into things ongoing. Even stuff from 12 years ago is valuable if it fills in gaps.
> OK, so what you're saying is that because you're completely in the
> right you WOULDN'T destroy documents of yours when a foreign invasion
> force came into view? The thing is, as you imply, we'll never see
> what was in those files, so all we can do is speculate as to what
> could have been in them. The suicide task forces and other mobs owned
> by Saddam rely on the old regime to keep them alive, not just above
> everyone else. They are loyal to Saddam because Saddam rewards them
> (or at least he did before) and so they have personal interests in
> keeping Saddam in power. The files could detail where some of them
> went into hiding, or the locations of some people who may be powerful
> enough to put the Ba'athists completely back in power. The thing is,
> any regime with any sense would destroy documents with any sort of
> information that could be beneficial to the Coalition - it doesn't
> necessarily mean that it was information based on WMDs, as you assume
> it would. Circumstancial evidence doth not a convincing case make.
Hang on one moment, why on earth would scientists have files saying where people are hiding, eh ? I mean come on, you're seriously saying Saddam and co scribbled down in a file where they would go to hide ! That is not at all consistent with how Saddam works. Also, by destroying evidence like this they also destory their chance to prove innocence. Why destory that which could prove you were not working on WMD ? What do the innocent have to hide ?
> What odds were these? You've worked against one of your own previous
> points by implying that the people actually LIKED Saddam, and it seems
> as though you are portraying them to be glory hunters - switching
> sides to be the winners. That's entirely wrong, as you, and many
> other hawks, were at pains to point out (when it became convenient) -
> the Iraqis were so badly mistreated by Saddam (the Shias mainly) that
> of course they would rise up, just as they had before. Perhaps one
> thing to point out would be the fact that only about 200 people were
> there to see Saddam's statue being pulled down - where were the rest?
> Granted, not everyone could've turned up, but 200 is a tremendously
> small number.
Erm nope. You're making wrong assumptions. Where do I imply they are "glory hunters" ? Where do I imply they liked Saddam ? Read back through any post I have made ever and find where I've said that, because its not there. They could only finally show their hatred of him when they were sure his regime was at an end, to do so before hand would have been suicide.
Yes, there were only a couple of hundred people out around the statue, but when you've been in a country for 25 years where the slightest anti-regime action means you, your family, and everyone else you know wind up in a shallow grave then see how brave you'd be about showing that kind of opposition. And the "hawks" conveniently using the Shias. Crap. No Fly zones were established to protect 1) The Kurds 2) A large number of the Shia population. We've been policing them for ages, so don't tell me we only use them when it's convenient. And if you trawl back through every official interview given by the US administration and other allied governments at no point will you find anything which says we expected a mass revolt against Saddam until the very final stages of the war.
> *Total lack of evidence to support the "war for oil" idea
> offered by you, apart from your tenuos "Bush=texan=oil"
> assumptions.
>
> I wouldn't describe the links as tenuous at all, considering Bush has
> his finger in 15 of the biggest oil pies in America today, as do his
> friends and other personal interests. Perhaps the fact that the one
> of the main instructions for the Coalition forces was to grab control
> of the Iraqi oil-fields was of note. No? How about that, when
> coupled by the other fact that the US government tries to abolish
> sanctions against the country as soon as possible, to get them to
> trade for oil with them. Curious, no?
Perhaps the fact it's been proven the fields were wired, and in some cases set alight, using explosives is ignored by you. What did Saddam do in Kuwait in 1991 ? Set the oil fields on fire. You really wanted us to let those wells in Iraq stay in his hands. Where the hell do you think Saddam's vast wealth came from ? Oil, and notice how millions of dollars in US$ have been found in the regime leaders properties. Where's that come from ? Oh, the oil for food programme. Now the sanctions. Now that we know the Iraqi regime is gone there is no need for them. Removal of them will help get Iraq back to normal faster, so if you, like Russia, oppose this measure then its more a desperate last gasp "no honest I was right" tactic than anything else. Oil is Iraq's wealth, and it needs major rebuilding and investment to spread that wealth to more people in Iraq. how do you do this ? TRADE.
> *Total lack of Vietnam style conflict having happened.
>
> No, you're spot on there, I'll give you that. But that could be
> because the tank battles that were so crucial to the Western forces
> were fought in wide open fields, which meant that any type of urban
> warfare that could have been carried out was eliminated.
Crap once more. All before the war numerous anti war campaigners said this was an Urban Vietnam. There were sod all tank battles with about three major examples, the real winner was airpower and the work of ordinary troops - Baghdad, Basra and Umm Qasar were not won with tanks !
> *Anti-war campaigner George Galloway's real motives unmasked, and
> defend him if you can, the guy is a traitor, speaking from a country
> where we have a somewhat iffy chance of legal extradition.
>
> How convenient that one of the most out-spoken people against the war
> has 'evidence' found against him, found by a pro-war paper, no less.
> It's almost like a fairy-tale for Bush and co. - the Telegraph
> journalist enters a room ravaged by fire - everything burnt,
> EXCEPT...a single shoe-box. And what should lie in that shoebox,
> other than papers stating that Galloway had taken money from the
> regime. Now, I certainly don't agree wioth Galloway's views, but
> doesn't this story strike you has a little odd? Lucky, even?
Oh dear wrong again. The files were found in a an office, which has been photographed and shown on live TV, where the only thing burnt was the door. There was a file mentioning England, which the journalist tok=ok. His translator looked at all the papers in order, and found Galloway mentioned in them. So no, it's not lucky. The man is a traitor. Look at what he owns, and he's just an MP ? 1/4 million pound home in Portugal, property in London, and everything else. Awful lot of money need for that..... and where is he issuing his statements of denial and vociferous tv interviews ? Oh, Portugal, where he knows we cannot come for him. But he has to come back one day, and his charity work is now under investigation.
> *Evidence of Saddam's forces murdering over 1000 Iranian POWS
> *Evidence of the murder of thousands of Iraqi political prisoners
> *Evidence of the torture, imprisonment (you did see the underground,
> walled off prisons right ?) and rape of 1000's more Iraqi political
> prisoners.
>
> Yuh-huh, yessir, but what we gonna do 'bout dem der prisoners locked
> up in Guantanamo? Y'know, that place where they don't let 'em eat,
> sleep, hear or see? Don't they got young'uns there, too? Yup, I
> thought so. Wha-what's that ya say...whaddya mean by pot, kettle and
> black?
Oh of course, we have a thousand or so people who were captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere so it's okay for Saddam to have killed hundreds of thousands...... We have about five teenagers in Guantanamo, whereas it's clear that to Saddam'd regime age was no hinderance to torture, rape and murder. But, just keep repeating "Guantanamo" over and over again and tell yourself it makes it all okay.
> *Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait.
>
> Wow, that's a surprise - I never saw a country under attack attacking
> another, did you? Nope, didn't think so.
Considering that Kuwait wasn't attacking it, and Iraq had pleaded that it was a peaceful nation then I think it showed the true nature of Saddam's regime prety clearly.
> *Evidence the entire IRaqi army was prepared for Bio-warfare, when
> Saddam knows full well we only use those weapons in retaliation, so
> why have them, considering the cost, eh ?
>
> Surely you've realised by now that Saddam was afraid of us launching
> attacks like that covertly (because we don't want all those women and
> children back home finding out, did we now?). What he would've been
> right to be afraid of was the Western gift, that just keeps on giving
> - yes, you know the one, none other than our good friend, DEPLETED
> URANIUM! 1.7 times denser than steel, we used it in Gulf War I, and
> we used it all over again in Gulf War II. For those not in the know,
> DU punctures the armour of tanks and other heavy artillery, and then
> ignites inh a mass of radioactive flame, leaving the surrounding area
> radioactive itself. And how much of this delightful stuff have we
> droped on the good people of Iraq? A whole 200 tons at least, that's
> how much! Have fun, guys!
Evidence of this supposed covert weapons use fear ? Thought not. Let me ask you, do you need antropine for depleted uranium shells ? No ? But they had tons of it..... I find anyone trying to say that all that gear Iraq had was because of our shells quite laughable ! :)
> *Evidence of massive purchases from China and Russia of military
> equipment whose defensive uses were limited.
>
> Indeed, not to mention those grenades that had British labels on them,
> as well.
The difference being the grenades were 20 years old and the Russian and Chinese stuff brand spanking new.....
> *Execution of US + UK POWS and numerous Geneva convention breaches.
> In
> the case of Jessica Lynch she was treated so badly that an Iraqi
> civilian walked 6 miles to contact US Marines, putting his own
> family
> in danger, and then made the same round trip two more times, all to
> help the "invaders".
>
> Yes, Iraq breached the terms of the Geneva Convention. Yes, it
> treated the POWs with utter contempt. Yes, America keeps 'terrorists'
> in Guantanamo Bay - wait, oh rats! I've let it slip, haven't I? I
> can't go around telling people that America breaches the Geneva
> Convention every day, can I? It's funny, isn't it, how America
> abandons treaties, ignores the UN and all the rest of it, but as soon
> as American POWs go on TV, we see Donald Rumsfeld run on TV screaming
> "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" One rule for
> us...
Where have I said Guantanamo is okay eh ? Haven't have I ? But you seek to use it as reason for Iraq's own atrocities. Justifying one atrocity with others is pretty lame. Incidentally the Geneva convention covers warfare, and if those taken in Afghanistan were terrorists then they aren't covered. They wanted to wander around without uniforms e.t.c and now they pay the price. It's not right, but it's still within the law.
> You're dead right, because Saddam would still be there. But I'm
> actually, and this might shock you, Star Fury...I HATE SADDAM. Should
> the man be allowed to live? Surely not! Should Dubya be President?
> Hell no! Neither should really be in power, because they are both a
> risk to the precariously peaceful position that we found ourselves in
> before the war. So yes, I'd rather we sent in the Special Forces to
> eliminate the regime from the inside, rather than needlessly waste
> Iraqi lives and limbs.
Special Forces ? Yeah in Hollywood maybe....go read about Iraq pre invasion and then come back with a plan, because Whitehall and the Pentagon could've used you....
Peaceful position before the war ? Oookay. Blatantly false. Just because we sit here in the UK in peace does not mean we live in peace. It just means the wars are not on TV....
> Name any dictator led regime that has been overthrown peacefully in
> history (not including ones where said dictator has died naturally)
> and democracy restored. Go on.
>
> I do believe that when Gorbochev was in power, the country was still a
> dictatorship, but he was removed through revolution, and democracy was
> restored without mass war.
Revolution ? Ah yes those highly "peaceful" tanks rolling into Moscow and the siege that followed. Crap example mate, I said an example where military force was not used. Gorbachev tried to instill change in Russia, and after his fall from grace corruption, crime and instability ensued en masse. It was a sham democracy.
> It's points like this I'd like to raise issue with. The fact is that
> 'your man' that you've captured is, in fact, retired. Hilarious as it
> may sound, the guy stopped his war on the West a long time ago, and
> renounced terrorism. The guy's intelligence is 12 years old. 12
> YEARS! How much have you learned in 12 years? Quite a lot, one would
> hope. What can we get from him, hmm?
Okay Jim, the fact he is supposedly retired is a mute point. Did tehe hunt for Nazi war criminals end when they reached retiring age ? No, they are even now still being searched for and traced by various NGO's. A crime is a crime and you don't get immunity based on age. As for intelligence, I somehow don't think you stop being a terrorist with a clikc of the fingers. He will know people, and information which may seem unimportant but could fit into things ongoing. Even stuff from 12 years ago is valuable if it fills in gaps.
> OK, so what you're saying is that because you're completely in the
> right you WOULDN'T destroy documents of yours when a foreign invasion
> force came into view? The thing is, as you imply, we'll never see
> what was in those files, so all we can do is speculate as to what
> could have been in them. The suicide task forces and other mobs owned
> by Saddam rely on the old regime to keep them alive, not just above
> everyone else. They are loyal to Saddam because Saddam rewards them
> (or at least he did before) and so they have personal interests in
> keeping Saddam in power. The files could detail where some of them
> went into hiding, or the locations of some people who may be powerful
> enough to put the Ba'athists completely back in power. The thing is,
> any regime with any sense would destroy documents with any sort of
> information that could be beneficial to the Coalition - it doesn't
> necessarily mean that it was information based on WMDs, as you assume
> it would. Circumstancial evidence doth not a convincing case make.
Hang on one moment, why on earth would scientists have files saying where people are hiding, eh ? I mean come on, you're seriously saying Saddam and co scribbled down in a file where they would go to hide ! That is not at all consistent with how Saddam works. Also, by destroying evidence like this they also destory their chance to prove innocence. Why destory that which could prove you were not working on WMD ? What do the innocent have to hide ?
> What odds were these? You've worked against one of your own previous
> points by implying that the people actually LIKED Saddam, and it seems
> as though you are portraying them to be glory hunters - switching
> sides to be the winners. That's entirely wrong, as you, and many
> other hawks, were at pains to point out (when it became convenient) -
> the Iraqis were so badly mistreated by Saddam (the Shias mainly) that
> of course they would rise up, just as they had before. Perhaps one
> thing to point out would be the fact that only about 200 people were
> there to see Saddam's statue being pulled down - where were the rest?
> Granted, not everyone could've turned up, but 200 is a tremendously
> small number.
Erm nope. You're making wrong assumptions. Where do I imply they are "glory hunters" ? Where do I imply they liked Saddam ? Read back through any post I have made ever and find where I've said that, because its not there. They could only finally show their hatred of him when they were sure his regime was at an end, to do so before hand would have been suicide.
Yes, there were only a couple of hundred people out around the statue, but when you've been in a country for 25 years where the slightest anti-regime action means you, your family, and everyone else you know wind up in a shallow grave then see how brave you'd be about showing that kind of opposition. And the "hawks" conveniently using the Shias. Crap. No Fly zones were established to protect 1) The Kurds 2) A large number of the Shia population. We've been policing them for ages, so don't tell me we only use them when it's convenient. And if you trawl back through every official interview given by the US administration and other allied governments at no point will you find anything which says we expected a mass revolt against Saddam until the very final stages of the war.
> *Total lack of evidence to support the "war for oil" idea
> offered by you, apart from your tenuos "Bush=texan=oil"
> assumptions.
>
> I wouldn't describe the links as tenuous at all, considering Bush has
> his finger in 15 of the biggest oil pies in America today, as do his
> friends and other personal interests. Perhaps the fact that the one
> of the main instructions for the Coalition forces was to grab control
> of the Iraqi oil-fields was of note. No? How about that, when
> coupled by the other fact that the US government tries to abolish
> sanctions against the country as soon as possible, to get them to
> trade for oil with them. Curious, no?
Perhaps the fact it's been proven the fields were wired, and in some cases set alight, using explosives is ignored by you. What did Saddam do in Kuwait in 1991 ? Set the oil fields on fire. You really wanted us to let those wells in Iraq stay in his hands. Where the hell do you think Saddam's vast wealth came from ? Oil, and notice how millions of dollars in US$ have been found in the regime leaders properties. Where's that come from ? Oh, the oil for food programme. Now the sanctions. Now that we know the Iraqi regime is gone there is no need for them. Removal of them will help get Iraq back to normal faster, so if you, like Russia, oppose this measure then its more a desperate last gasp "no honest I was right" tactic than anything else. Oil is Iraq's wealth, and it needs major rebuilding and investment to spread that wealth to more people in Iraq. how do you do this ? TRADE.
> *Total lack of Vietnam style conflict having happened.
>
> No, you're spot on there, I'll give you that. But that could be
> because the tank battles that were so crucial to the Western forces
> were fought in wide open fields, which meant that any type of urban
> warfare that could have been carried out was eliminated.
Crap once more. All before the war numerous anti war campaigners said this was an Urban Vietnam. There were sod all tank battles with about three major examples, the real winner was airpower and the work of ordinary troops - Baghdad, Basra and Umm Qasar were not won with tanks !
> *Anti-war campaigner George Galloway's real motives unmasked, and
> defend him if you can, the guy is a traitor, speaking from a country
> where we have a somewhat iffy chance of legal extradition.
>
> How convenient that one of the most out-spoken people against the war
> has 'evidence' found against him, found by a pro-war paper, no less.
> It's almost like a fairy-tale for Bush and co. - the Telegraph
> journalist enters a room ravaged by fire - everything burnt,
> EXCEPT...a single shoe-box. And what should lie in that shoebox,
> other than papers stating that Galloway had taken money from the
> regime. Now, I certainly don't agree wioth Galloway's views, but
> doesn't this story strike you has a little odd? Lucky, even?
Oh dear wrong again. The files were found in a an office, which has been photographed and shown on live TV, where the only thing burnt was the door. There was a file mentioning England, which the journalist tok=ok. His translator looked at all the papers in order, and found Galloway mentioned in them. So no, it's not lucky. The man is a traitor. Look at what he owns, and he's just an MP ? 1/4 million pound home in Portugal, property in London, and everything else. Awful lot of money need for that..... and where is he issuing his statements of denial and vociferous tv interviews ? Oh, Portugal, where he knows we cannot come for him. But he has to come back one day, and his charity work is now under investigation.
> *Evidence of Saddam's forces murdering over 1000 Iranian POWS
> *Evidence of the murder of thousands of Iraqi political prisoners
> *Evidence of the torture, imprisonment (you did see the underground,
> walled off prisons right ?) and rape of 1000's more Iraqi political
> prisoners.
>
> Yuh-huh, yessir, but what we gonna do 'bout dem der prisoners locked
> up in Guantanamo? Y'know, that place where they don't let 'em eat,
> sleep, hear or see? Don't they got young'uns there, too? Yup, I
> thought so. Wha-what's that ya say...whaddya mean by pot, kettle and
> black?
Oh of course, we have a thousand or so people who were captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere so it's okay for Saddam to have killed hundreds of thousands...... We have about five teenagers in Guantanamo, whereas it's clear that to Saddam'd regime age was no hinderance to torture, rape and murder. But, just keep repeating "Guantanamo" over and over again and tell yourself it makes it all okay.
> *Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait.
>
> Wow, that's a surprise - I never saw a country under attack attacking
> another, did you? Nope, didn't think so.
Considering that Kuwait wasn't attacking it, and Iraq had pleaded that it was a peaceful nation then I think it showed the true nature of Saddam's regime prety clearly.
> *Evidence the entire IRaqi army was prepared for Bio-warfare, when
> Saddam knows full well we only use those weapons in retaliation, so
> why have them, considering the cost, eh ?
>
> Surely you've realised by now that Saddam was afraid of us launching
> attacks like that covertly (because we don't want all those women and
> children back home finding out, did we now?). What he would've been
> right to be afraid of was the Western gift, that just keeps on giving
> - yes, you know the one, none other than our good friend, DEPLETED
> URANIUM! 1.7 times denser than steel, we used it in Gulf War I, and
> we used it all over again in Gulf War II. For those not in the know,
> DU punctures the armour of tanks and other heavy artillery, and then
> ignites inh a mass of radioactive flame, leaving the surrounding area
> radioactive itself. And how much of this delightful stuff have we
> droped on the good people of Iraq? A whole 200 tons at least, that's
> how much! Have fun, guys!
Evidence of this supposed covert weapons use fear ? Thought not. Let me ask you, do you need antropine for depleted uranium shells ? No ? But they had tons of it..... I find anyone trying to say that all that gear Iraq had was because of our shells quite laughable ! :)
> *Evidence of massive purchases from China and Russia of military
> equipment whose defensive uses were limited.
>
> Indeed, not to mention those grenades that had British labels on them,
> as well.
The difference being the grenades were 20 years old and the Russian and Chinese stuff brand spanking new.....
> *Execution of US + UK POWS and numerous Geneva convention breaches.
> In
> the case of Jessica Lynch she was treated so badly that an Iraqi
> civilian walked 6 miles to contact US Marines, putting his own
> family
> in danger, and then made the same round trip two more times, all to
> help the "invaders".
>
> Yes, Iraq breached the terms of the Geneva Convention. Yes, it
> treated the POWs with utter contempt. Yes, America keeps 'terrorists'
> in Guantanamo Bay - wait, oh rats! I've let it slip, haven't I? I
> can't go around telling people that America breaches the Geneva
> Convention every day, can I? It's funny, isn't it, how America
> abandons treaties, ignores the UN and all the rest of it, but as soon
> as American POWs go on TV, we see Donald Rumsfeld run on TV screaming
> "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" One rule for
> us...
Where have I said Guantanamo is okay eh ? Haven't have I ? But you seek to use it as reason for Iraq's own atrocities. Justifying one atrocity with others is pretty lame. Incidentally the Geneva convention covers warfare, and if those taken in Afghanistan were terrorists then they aren't covered. They wanted to wander around without uniforms e.t.c and now they pay the price. It's not right, but it's still within the law.
> You're dead right, because Saddam would still be there. But I'm
> actually, and this might shock you, Star Fury...I HATE SADDAM. Should
> the man be allowed to live? Surely not! Should Dubya be President?
> Hell no! Neither should really be in power, because they are both a
> risk to the precariously peaceful position that we found ourselves in
> before the war. So yes, I'd rather we sent in the Special Forces to
> eliminate the regime from the inside, rather than needlessly waste
> Iraqi lives and limbs.
Special Forces ? Yeah in Hollywood maybe....go read about Iraq pre invasion and then come back with a plan, because Whitehall and the Pentagon could've used you....
Peaceful position before the war ? Oookay. Blatantly false. Just because we sit here in the UK in peace does not mean we live in peace. It just means the wars are not on TV....
> Name any dictator led regime that has been overthrown peacefully in
> history (not including ones where said dictator has died naturally)
> and democracy restored. Go on.
>
> I do believe that when Gorbochev was in power, the country was still a
> dictatorship, but he was removed through revolution, and democracy was
> restored without mass war.
Revolution ? Ah yes those highly "peaceful" tanks rolling into Moscow and the siege that followed. Crap example mate, I said an example where military force was not used. Gorbachev tried to instill change in Russia, and after his fall from grace corruption, crime and instability ensued en masse. It was a sham democracy.
Sorry to pick up from an old post here, but...
Star Fury wrote:
> RE: Overwhelming Evidence.
> *Major terrorist captured.
It's points like this I'd like to raise issue with. The fact is that 'your man' that you've captured is, in fact, retired. Hilarious as it may sound, the guy stopped his war on the West a long time ago, and renounced terrorism. The guy's intelligence is 12 years old. 12 YEARS! How much have you learned in 12 years? Quite a lot, one would hope. What can we get from him, hmm?
> *Iraqi scientists claiming that evidence was ordered destroyed 4 days
> before war began.
OK, so what you're saying is that because you're completely in the right you WOULDN'T destroy documents of yours when a foreign invasion force came into view? The thing is, as you imply, we'll never see what was in those files, so all we can do is speculate as to what could have been in them. The suicide task forces and other mobs owned by Saddam rely on the old regime to keep them alive, not just above everyone else. They are loyal to Saddam because Saddam rewards them (or at least he did before) and so they have personal interests in keeping Saddam in power. The files could detail where some of them went into hiding, or the locations of some people who may be powerful enough to put the Ba'athists completely back in power. The thing is, any regime with any sense would destroy documents with any sort of information that could be beneficial to the Coalition - it doesn't necessarily mean that it was information based on WMDs, as you assume it would. Circumstancial evidence doth not a convincing case make.
> *The Iraqi people finally turning against the regime, against all the
> odds.
What odds were these? You've worked against one of your own previous points by implying that the people actually LIKED Saddam, and it seems as though you are portraying them to be glory hunters - switching sides to be the winners. That's entirely wrong, as you, and many other hawks, were at pains to point out (when it became convenient) - the Iraqis were so badly mistreated by Saddam (the Shias mainly) that of course they would rise up, just as they had before. Perhaps one thing to point out would be the fact that only about 200 people were there to see Saddam's statue being pulled down - where were the rest? Granted, not everyone could've turned up, but 200 is a tremendously small number.
> *Total lack of evidence to support the "war for oil" idea
> offered by you, apart from your tenuos "Bush=texan=oil"
> assumptions.
I wouldn't describe the links as tenuous at all, considering Bush has his finger in 15 of the biggest oil pies in America today, as do his friends and other personal interests. Perhaps the fact that the one of the main instructions for the Coalition forces was to grab control of the Iraqi oil-fields was of note. No? How about that, when coupled by the other fact that the US government tries to abolish sanctions against the country as soon as possible, to get them to trade for oil with them. Curious, no?
> *Total lack of Vietnam style conflict having happened.
No, you're spot on there, I'll give you that. But that could be because the tank battles that were so crucial to the Western forces were fought in wide open fields, which meant that any type of urban warfare that could have been carried out was eliminated.
> *Anti-war campaigner George Galloway's real motives unmasked, and
> defend him if you can, the guy is a traitor, speaking from a country
> where we have a somewhat iffy chance of legal extradition.
How convenient that one of the most out-spoken people against the war has 'evidence' found against him, found by a pro-war paper, no less. It's almost like a fairy-tale for Bush and co. - the Telegraph journalist enters a room ravaged by fire - everything burnt, EXCEPT...a single shoe-box. And what should lie in that shoebox, other than papers stating that Galloway had taken money from the regime. Now, I certainly don't agree wioth Galloway's views, but doesn't this story strike you has a little odd? Lucky, even?
> *Evidence of Saddam's forces murdering over 1000 Iranian POWS
> *Evidence of the murder of thousands of Iraqi political prisoners
> *Evidence of the torture, imprisonment (you did see the underground,
> walled off prisons right ?) and rape of 1000's more Iraqi political
> prisoners.
Yuh-huh, yessir, but what we gonna do 'bout dem der prisoners locked up in Guantanamo? Y'know, that place where they don't let 'em eat, sleep, hear or see? Don't they got young'uns there, too? Yup, I thought so. Wha-what's that ya say...whaddya mean by pot, kettle and black?
> *Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait.
Wow, that's a surprise - I never saw a country under attack attacking another, did you? Nope, didn't think so.
> *Evidence the entire IRaqi army was prepared for Bio-warfare, when
> Saddam knows full well we only use those weapons in retaliation, so
> why have them, considering the cost, eh ?
Surely you've realised by now that Saddam was afraid of us launching attacks like that covertly (because we don't want all those women and children back home finding out, did we now?). What he would've been right to be afraid of was the Western gift, that just keeps on giving - yes, you know the one, none other than our good friend, DEPLETED URANIUM! 1.7 times denser than steel, we used it in Gulf War I, and we used it all over again in Gulf War II. For those not in the know, DU punctures the armour of tanks and other heavy artillery, and then ignites inh a mass of radioactive flame, leaving the surrounding area radioactive itself. And how much of this delightful stuff have we droped on the good people of Iraq? A whole 200 tons at least, that's how much! Have fun, guys!
> *Evidence of massive purchases from China and Russia of military
> equipment whose defensive uses were limited.
Indeed, not to mention those grenades that had British labels on them, as well.
> *Execution of US + UK POWS and numerous Geneva convention breaches. In
> the case of Jessica Lynch she was treated so badly that an Iraqi
> civilian walked 6 miles to contact US Marines, putting his own family
> in danger, and then made the same round trip two more times, all to
> help the "invaders".
Yes, Iraq breached the terms of the Geneva Convention. Yes, it treated the POWs with utter contempt. Yes, America keeps 'terrorists' in Guantanamo Bay - wait, oh rats! I've let it slip, haven't I? I can't go around telling people that America breaches the Geneva Convention every day, can I? It's funny, isn't it, how America abandons treaties, ignores the UN and all the rest of it, but as soon as American POWs go on TV, we see Donald Rumsfeld run on TV screaming "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" One rule for us...
> But oh no, this was war for oil and should never have happened, you,
> and others, would rather have had no conflict and have Saddam sitting
> on his throne, which, face facts, is where we would be today if there
> had been no war.
You're dead right, because Saddam would still be there. But I'm actually, and this might shock you, Star Fury...I HATE SADDAM. Should the man be allowed to live? Surely not! Should Dubya be President? Hell no! Neither should really be in power, because they are both a risk to the precariously peaceful position that we found ourselves in before the war. So yes, I'd rather we sent in the Special Forces to eliminate the regime from the inside, rather than needlessly waste Iraqi lives and limbs.
> Sure, you can make a list of events in the USA's history, and the UK's
> and (INSERT EVERY NATION ON EARTH HERE) but the fact is Iraq needed
> sorting. UN had 12 years, failed. We gave it 6 months, then went in,
> and we'll stay this time until the job is done.
Not only are we staying, but we're not letting them rule themselves, either! Isn't that great? We're banning them from having Islamic government, but not only that, we're sending them the wonder that is Franklin Graham, a person sent to convert the masses! Uncle Sam, here's my thanks to ya!
> Name any dictator led regime that has been overthrown peacefully in
> history (not including ones where said dictator has died naturally)
> and democracy restored. Go on.
I do believe that when Gorbochev was in power, the country was still a dictatorship, but he was removed through revolution, and democracy was restored without mass war.
Star Fury wrote:
> RE: Overwhelming Evidence.
> *Major terrorist captured.
It's points like this I'd like to raise issue with. The fact is that 'your man' that you've captured is, in fact, retired. Hilarious as it may sound, the guy stopped his war on the West a long time ago, and renounced terrorism. The guy's intelligence is 12 years old. 12 YEARS! How much have you learned in 12 years? Quite a lot, one would hope. What can we get from him, hmm?
> *Iraqi scientists claiming that evidence was ordered destroyed 4 days
> before war began.
OK, so what you're saying is that because you're completely in the right you WOULDN'T destroy documents of yours when a foreign invasion force came into view? The thing is, as you imply, we'll never see what was in those files, so all we can do is speculate as to what could have been in them. The suicide task forces and other mobs owned by Saddam rely on the old regime to keep them alive, not just above everyone else. They are loyal to Saddam because Saddam rewards them (or at least he did before) and so they have personal interests in keeping Saddam in power. The files could detail where some of them went into hiding, or the locations of some people who may be powerful enough to put the Ba'athists completely back in power. The thing is, any regime with any sense would destroy documents with any sort of information that could be beneficial to the Coalition - it doesn't necessarily mean that it was information based on WMDs, as you assume it would. Circumstancial evidence doth not a convincing case make.
> *The Iraqi people finally turning against the regime, against all the
> odds.
What odds were these? You've worked against one of your own previous points by implying that the people actually LIKED Saddam, and it seems as though you are portraying them to be glory hunters - switching sides to be the winners. That's entirely wrong, as you, and many other hawks, were at pains to point out (when it became convenient) - the Iraqis were so badly mistreated by Saddam (the Shias mainly) that of course they would rise up, just as they had before. Perhaps one thing to point out would be the fact that only about 200 people were there to see Saddam's statue being pulled down - where were the rest? Granted, not everyone could've turned up, but 200 is a tremendously small number.
> *Total lack of evidence to support the "war for oil" idea
> offered by you, apart from your tenuos "Bush=texan=oil"
> assumptions.
I wouldn't describe the links as tenuous at all, considering Bush has his finger in 15 of the biggest oil pies in America today, as do his friends and other personal interests. Perhaps the fact that the one of the main instructions for the Coalition forces was to grab control of the Iraqi oil-fields was of note. No? How about that, when coupled by the other fact that the US government tries to abolish sanctions against the country as soon as possible, to get them to trade for oil with them. Curious, no?
> *Total lack of Vietnam style conflict having happened.
No, you're spot on there, I'll give you that. But that could be because the tank battles that were so crucial to the Western forces were fought in wide open fields, which meant that any type of urban warfare that could have been carried out was eliminated.
> *Anti-war campaigner George Galloway's real motives unmasked, and
> defend him if you can, the guy is a traitor, speaking from a country
> where we have a somewhat iffy chance of legal extradition.
How convenient that one of the most out-spoken people against the war has 'evidence' found against him, found by a pro-war paper, no less. It's almost like a fairy-tale for Bush and co. - the Telegraph journalist enters a room ravaged by fire - everything burnt, EXCEPT...a single shoe-box. And what should lie in that shoebox, other than papers stating that Galloway had taken money from the regime. Now, I certainly don't agree wioth Galloway's views, but doesn't this story strike you has a little odd? Lucky, even?
> *Evidence of Saddam's forces murdering over 1000 Iranian POWS
> *Evidence of the murder of thousands of Iraqi political prisoners
> *Evidence of the torture, imprisonment (you did see the underground,
> walled off prisons right ?) and rape of 1000's more Iraqi political
> prisoners.
Yuh-huh, yessir, but what we gonna do 'bout dem der prisoners locked up in Guantanamo? Y'know, that place where they don't let 'em eat, sleep, hear or see? Don't they got young'uns there, too? Yup, I thought so. Wha-what's that ya say...whaddya mean by pot, kettle and black?
> *Iraq fired missiles at Kuwait.
Wow, that's a surprise - I never saw a country under attack attacking another, did you? Nope, didn't think so.
> *Evidence the entire IRaqi army was prepared for Bio-warfare, when
> Saddam knows full well we only use those weapons in retaliation, so
> why have them, considering the cost, eh ?
Surely you've realised by now that Saddam was afraid of us launching attacks like that covertly (because we don't want all those women and children back home finding out, did we now?). What he would've been right to be afraid of was the Western gift, that just keeps on giving - yes, you know the one, none other than our good friend, DEPLETED URANIUM! 1.7 times denser than steel, we used it in Gulf War I, and we used it all over again in Gulf War II. For those not in the know, DU punctures the armour of tanks and other heavy artillery, and then ignites inh a mass of radioactive flame, leaving the surrounding area radioactive itself. And how much of this delightful stuff have we droped on the good people of Iraq? A whole 200 tons at least, that's how much! Have fun, guys!
> *Evidence of massive purchases from China and Russia of military
> equipment whose defensive uses were limited.
Indeed, not to mention those grenades that had British labels on them, as well.
> *Execution of US + UK POWS and numerous Geneva convention breaches. In
> the case of Jessica Lynch she was treated so badly that an Iraqi
> civilian walked 6 miles to contact US Marines, putting his own family
> in danger, and then made the same round trip two more times, all to
> help the "invaders".
Yes, Iraq breached the terms of the Geneva Convention. Yes, it treated the POWs with utter contempt. Yes, America keeps 'terrorists' in Guantanamo Bay - wait, oh rats! I've let it slip, haven't I? I can't go around telling people that America breaches the Geneva Convention every day, can I? It's funny, isn't it, how America abandons treaties, ignores the UN and all the rest of it, but as soon as American POWs go on TV, we see Donald Rumsfeld run on TV screaming "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" One rule for us...
> But oh no, this was war for oil and should never have happened, you,
> and others, would rather have had no conflict and have Saddam sitting
> on his throne, which, face facts, is where we would be today if there
> had been no war.
You're dead right, because Saddam would still be there. But I'm actually, and this might shock you, Star Fury...I HATE SADDAM. Should the man be allowed to live? Surely not! Should Dubya be President? Hell no! Neither should really be in power, because they are both a risk to the precariously peaceful position that we found ourselves in before the war. So yes, I'd rather we sent in the Special Forces to eliminate the regime from the inside, rather than needlessly waste Iraqi lives and limbs.
> Sure, you can make a list of events in the USA's history, and the UK's
> and (INSERT EVERY NATION ON EARTH HERE) but the fact is Iraq needed
> sorting. UN had 12 years, failed. We gave it 6 months, then went in,
> and we'll stay this time until the job is done.
Not only are we staying, but we're not letting them rule themselves, either! Isn't that great? We're banning them from having Islamic government, but not only that, we're sending them the wonder that is Franklin Graham, a person sent to convert the masses! Uncle Sam, here's my thanks to ya!
> Name any dictator led regime that has been overthrown peacefully in
> history (not including ones where said dictator has died naturally)
> and democracy restored. Go on.
I do believe that when Gorbochev was in power, the country was still a dictatorship, but he was removed through revolution, and democracy was restored without mass war.
Star Fury wrote:
> How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and
> ignoring contrary facts ?
Tee-hee. The irony of that statement coming from Mr. Fury (which sounds like a much better name. Or a wrestler. Anyway....) really tickles my ribs, when he's contstantly referring to footage reported by the mainstream news media. Which of course, is incontravertably true. I love CNN. It amuses me no end.
> How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and
> ignoring contrary facts ?
Tee-hee. The irony of that statement coming from Mr. Fury (which sounds like a much better name. Or a wrestler. Anyway....) really tickles my ribs, when he's contstantly referring to footage reported by the mainstream news media. Which of course, is incontravertably true. I love CNN. It amuses me no end.
And the forgery of photographs proves what ?
I saw the thing live on TV.
I saw the thing live on TV.
God, it's like a war-zone in here.
Someone should draw up a road-map for peace.
Someone should draw up a road-map for peace.
Star Fury wrote:
> How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and
> ignoring contrary facts ?
---
I havent at any point allied myself or made mention of that group or website, you saw fit to bring it up.
And I'd ask how you take seriously any war whose basis is lies and ignoring contrary facts?
Evidence of WOMD non-existent - still the case.
Papers cribbed from an old University paper.
The tubthumping of "terrorism", despite Hussein never, not once at all ever committing acts of terrorism towards The West.
The excuse of WOMD - used not once by a "desperate madman" and not located.
And you want to talk about propaganda?
London Evening Standard altering photographs to give a higher crowd-count in celebrations:
http://www.ulrp.com/message/ (SPACE) ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000330
Time Magazine guilty of doctoring photos
http://www.ulrp.com/message/ (SPACE) ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000321
> How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and
> ignoring contrary facts ?
---
I havent at any point allied myself or made mention of that group or website, you saw fit to bring it up.
And I'd ask how you take seriously any war whose basis is lies and ignoring contrary facts?
Evidence of WOMD non-existent - still the case.
Papers cribbed from an old University paper.
The tubthumping of "terrorism", despite Hussein never, not once at all ever committing acts of terrorism towards The West.
The excuse of WOMD - used not once by a "desperate madman" and not located.
And you want to talk about propaganda?
London Evening Standard altering photographs to give a higher crowd-count in celebrations:
http://www.ulrp.com/message/ (SPACE) ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000330
Time Magazine guilty of doctoring photos
http://www.ulrp.com/message/ (SPACE) ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000321
Hey, it's not morning yet :)
Stop The War organised the whole movement in the UK, it allied itself with CND, TUC e.t.c, hence they are legitimate targets for proof that the whole campaign had motives not involving the Iraqi people but was more concerned with anti-US/Globalisation bashing. Anyone who was anti-war points out the public support they had/have, yet this support was gathered up by Stop The War. If they cannot find it within themselves to use true and accurate facts then that puts their whole campaign to ruin.
How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and ignoring contrary facts ?
Stop The War organised the whole movement in the UK, it allied itself with CND, TUC e.t.c, hence they are legitimate targets for proof that the whole campaign had motives not involving the Iraqi people but was more concerned with anti-US/Globalisation bashing. Anyone who was anti-war points out the public support they had/have, yet this support was gathered up by Stop The War. If they cannot find it within themselves to use true and accurate facts then that puts their whole campaign to ruin.
How do you take any campaign seriously whose basis is lies and ignoring contrary facts ?
Star Fury wrote:
> Still, let's turn too a few bits of evidence from
> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
----
Ah-ah-ah
*wags finger*
You have on 3 seperate occasions belittled that website, saying that "any info is biased, therefore cannot be taken seriously as fact".
So why is it ok for you to now use it to prove whatever points you think mean anything?
How can you state you did not recognise stopwar.org.uk as a genuine source of intelligent fact, yet as soon as you need something to validate a point, it's ok to use???
Same as the questions I posed over 3 weeks, how can you post the above original post, then revert to your former stance?
Oh, that's right...it was just something you wrote to get a response.
Tut tut, and you wonder why people pay zero attention to you here?
> Still, let's turn too a few bits of evidence from
> http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
----
Ah-ah-ah
*wags finger*
You have on 3 seperate occasions belittled that website, saying that "any info is biased, therefore cannot be taken seriously as fact".
So why is it ok for you to now use it to prove whatever points you think mean anything?
How can you state you did not recognise stopwar.org.uk as a genuine source of intelligent fact, yet as soon as you need something to validate a point, it's ok to use???
Same as the questions I posed over 3 weeks, how can you post the above original post, then revert to your former stance?
Oh, that's right...it was just something you wrote to get a response.
Tut tut, and you wonder why people pay zero attention to you here?
Star Fury wrote:
> Goatboy, if at this stage you require proof that war on Iraq was both
> necessary, and justified, then I would suggest there is no evidence
> that will actually dissuade you.
----
Pls see reason (b) given in my previous response.
Good little fishy
*throws more bait into the forum lake*
Anyway, I fully support the war. I was just saying that I didn't to see what reaction I'd get from certain individuals here.
> Goatboy, if at this stage you require proof that war on Iraq was both
> necessary, and justified, then I would suggest there is no evidence
> that will actually dissuade you.
----
Pls see reason (b) given in my previous response.
Good little fishy
*throws more bait into the forum lake*
Anyway, I fully support the war. I was just saying that I didn't to see what reaction I'd get from certain individuals here.
Page: