The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Okay...you criticise goatboy for angry words despite his anti war stance. Thus implying that, because he is anti-war, he should not display any aggression. Which is, in fact, what one could expect of a pacifist but not necessarily from someone who is anti-war.
Or maybe I've gotten that wrong. Maybe you meant something entirely different. Please, do go on and explain what you did mean.
Or maybe I've gotten that wrong. Maybe you meant something entirely different. Please, do go on and explain what you did mean.
I thought Goatboy's words were very aggressive. Overly aggressive. Suggesting to Star Fury that he is a mongoloid and that he should top himself and make the world a better place.
Now I may have missed some earlier conversation and maybe he was linking what he wrote to something which was said previously as a joke or something, but on face value they were very aggressive - perhaps the best word to describe them would be "bellicose" or maybe "belligerent", in other words: "war-like".
So I was just making the observation that for someone who takes such an anti-war, anti-military aggression stance, I thought it was a little ironic that he should give someone who is pro-war such a war-like verbal blast.
Nothing more than that.
Now I may have missed some earlier conversation and maybe he was linking what he wrote to something which was said previously as a joke or something, but on face value they were very aggressive - perhaps the best word to describe them would be "bellicose" or maybe "belligerent", in other words: "war-like".
So I was just making the observation that for someone who takes such an anti-war, anti-military aggression stance, I thought it was a little ironic that he should give someone who is pro-war such a war-like verbal blast.
Nothing more than that.
First up: You did miss something. It was a riff on a Bill Hicks routine (the whole "Kill Yourself" thing was anyway). But one can't expect everyone to know that, so that is more a case of misunderstanding on all sides.
Secondly: Since when does anti-war (specifically, this recent war) mean anti-military?
Secondly: Since when does anti-war (specifically, this recent war) mean anti-military?
Light wrote:
> First up: You did miss something. It was a riff on a Bill Hicks
> routine (the whole "Kill Yourself" thing was anyway).
Well there you go. I didn't know that. So there was a bit of disguised humour in what he wrote then.
> Secondly: Since when does anti-war (specifically, this recent war)
> mean anti-military?
I said 'anti-military aggression' as in anti- pre-emptive strikes, anti-invasion etc, but can I just say that I'm not pro-war on Iraq. Saddam is/was a nasty dictator but I mistrust the motives of Bush & co.
> First up: You did miss something. It was a riff on a Bill Hicks
> routine (the whole "Kill Yourself" thing was anyway).
Well there you go. I didn't know that. So there was a bit of disguised humour in what he wrote then.
> Secondly: Since when does anti-war (specifically, this recent war)
> mean anti-military?
I said 'anti-military aggression' as in anti- pre-emptive strikes, anti-invasion etc, but can I just say that I'm not pro-war on Iraq. Saddam is/was a nasty dictator but I mistrust the motives of Bush & co.
i was wrong once, she WAS a man.......now never mention this again.
Light wrote:
> Okay...you criticise goatboy for angry words despite his anti war
> stance. Thus implying that, because he is anti-war, he should not
> display any aggression. Which is, in fact, what one could expect of a
> pacifist but not necessarily from someone who is anti-war.
Crap, anti-war, in this case, meant pacifist. Anti-war people did not want conflict at any cost, whilst bunching all those who did support a war into a "you guys want to anhilate everyone in Iraq" group. No one wanted war, but sometimes you cannot back down from a situation, something the anti war lobby needs learning big time.
> Okay...you criticise goatboy for angry words despite his anti war
> stance. Thus implying that, because he is anti-war, he should not
> display any aggression. Which is, in fact, what one could expect of a
> pacifist but not necessarily from someone who is anti-war.
Crap, anti-war, in this case, meant pacifist. Anti-war people did not want conflict at any cost, whilst bunching all those who did support a war into a "you guys want to anhilate everyone in Iraq" group. No one wanted war, but sometimes you cannot back down from a situation, something the anti war lobby needs learning big time.
Listen retared, anti-war doesn't equate pacifist.
Where in your tiny little mind do you get that from?
Kill yourself, go on.
I'm not pacifist at all, I am against an invasion based on spurious evidence, false reasons and erroneous details.
"He's a terrorist" "No he's not, never has been"
"Well the he has WOMD" "No he doesn't"
"It's about freeing Iraqis, you cant object to that"
In case you forgot, mongoloid, this whole invasion was to prevent the threat of WOMD. Of which there are none.
Kill yourself, go on.
Don't presume to tell me what I actually meant, the opinions of a college-warhawk mean nothing.
Kill yourself, go on.
Do it.
Where in your tiny little mind do you get that from?
Kill yourself, go on.
I'm not pacifist at all, I am against an invasion based on spurious evidence, false reasons and erroneous details.
"He's a terrorist" "No he's not, never has been"
"Well the he has WOMD" "No he doesn't"
"It's about freeing Iraqis, you cant object to that"
In case you forgot, mongoloid, this whole invasion was to prevent the threat of WOMD. Of which there are none.
Kill yourself, go on.
Don't presume to tell me what I actually meant, the opinions of a college-warhawk mean nothing.
Kill yourself, go on.
Do it.
Heh. Would it bad form to point out that you spelt retard wrong?
Bell is great isn't he? Whenever he's faced with a point or a query or a fact he doesn't like, he simply says "No it isn't". I mean look at his posts (those hit and run pieces of rattle throwing that he musters when feeling especially brave anyway...) over the last few months;
Point: The anti war lobby are opposed to the war because all of the reasons put forward don't have sufficient evidence.
Bell's Counterpoint: There is enough evidence.
Point: Anti-war does not mean Pacifist. It is simply the opposition to a particular war, whereas pacifism is opposition to any conflict or violence on any level.
Bell's Counterpoint: No it isn't. Anti war is pacifism
Point: The anti war lobby are concerned that the US will simply install another dictator and the lot of the Iraqi people will not improve.
Bell's Counterpoint: No they're not. They don't really care about the Iraqi people.
Point: Bell hasn't actually given any evidence to back up his views
Bell's Counterpoint: Yes I have.
Point: Every other poster here has at least given reasons why they feel the way they do, rather than avoiding questions and repeating the same statements.
Bell's Counterpoint: No they haven't.
Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
Now, you may notice a theme here. That's right; bland statements with nothing to support them other than a vague implication that "I'm right, and you must accept unconditionally what I say".
Oh, and if you're not reading goatboy's or my posts, how come you managed to respond to my post about anti-war and pacifism? I mean, realistically Goatboy and myself and Blank et al should really stop ridiculing you, as it's painfully clear to all observers that intellectually speacking you are the equivalent of a warm bowl of cockstock (and you're not even the board's main Pro-war poster; Dr Gonzo, Garin et al have provided intelligent debate and reasoning for their beliefs). But frankly, I derive the same guilty pleasure from this as one would from beating up a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone knows that you can't offer anything like a credible defence, but there are few more deserving of the beating.
Bell is great isn't he? Whenever he's faced with a point or a query or a fact he doesn't like, he simply says "No it isn't". I mean look at his posts (those hit and run pieces of rattle throwing that he musters when feeling especially brave anyway...) over the last few months;
Point: The anti war lobby are opposed to the war because all of the reasons put forward don't have sufficient evidence.
Bell's Counterpoint: There is enough evidence.
Point: Anti-war does not mean Pacifist. It is simply the opposition to a particular war, whereas pacifism is opposition to any conflict or violence on any level.
Bell's Counterpoint: No it isn't. Anti war is pacifism
Point: The anti war lobby are concerned that the US will simply install another dictator and the lot of the Iraqi people will not improve.
Bell's Counterpoint: No they're not. They don't really care about the Iraqi people.
Point: Bell hasn't actually given any evidence to back up his views
Bell's Counterpoint: Yes I have.
Point: Every other poster here has at least given reasons why they feel the way they do, rather than avoiding questions and repeating the same statements.
Bell's Counterpoint: No they haven't.
Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
Now, you may notice a theme here. That's right; bland statements with nothing to support them other than a vague implication that "I'm right, and you must accept unconditionally what I say".
Oh, and if you're not reading goatboy's or my posts, how come you managed to respond to my post about anti-war and pacifism? I mean, realistically Goatboy and myself and Blank et al should really stop ridiculing you, as it's painfully clear to all observers that intellectually speacking you are the equivalent of a warm bowl of cockstock (and you're not even the board's main Pro-war poster; Dr Gonzo, Garin et al have provided intelligent debate and reasoning for their beliefs). But frankly, I derive the same guilty pleasure from this as one would from beating up a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone knows that you can't offer anything like a credible defence, but there are few more deserving of the beating.
Goatboy wrote:
> Listen retared, anti-war doesn't equate pacifist.
> Where in your tiny little mind do you get that from?
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
>
> I'm not pacifist at all, I am against an invasion based on spurious
> evidence, false reasons and erroneous details.
> "He's a terrorist" "No he's not, never has been"
> "Well the he has WOMD" "No he doesn't"
> "It's about freeing Iraqis, you cant object to that"
> In case you forgot, mongoloid, this whole invasion was to prevent the
> threat of WOMD. Of which there are none.
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
>
> Don't presume to tell me what I actually meant, the opinions of a
> college-warhawk mean nothing.
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
> Do it.
Yeah yeah, go read, listen to, or watch Bill Hicks.
> Listen retared, anti-war doesn't equate pacifist.
> Where in your tiny little mind do you get that from?
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
>
> I'm not pacifist at all, I am against an invasion based on spurious
> evidence, false reasons and erroneous details.
> "He's a terrorist" "No he's not, never has been"
> "Well the he has WOMD" "No he doesn't"
> "It's about freeing Iraqis, you cant object to that"
> In case you forgot, mongoloid, this whole invasion was to prevent the
> threat of WOMD. Of which there are none.
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
>
> Don't presume to tell me what I actually meant, the opinions of a
> college-warhawk mean nothing.
>
> Kill yourself, go on.
> Do it.
Yeah yeah, go read, listen to, or watch Bill Hicks.
Light wrote:
> Heh. Would it bad form to point out that you spelt retard wrong?
>
>
> Bell is great isn't he? Whenever he's faced with a point or a query or
> a fact he doesn't like, he simply says "No it isn't". I mean
> look at his posts (those hit and run pieces of rattle throwing that he
> musters when feeling especially brave anyway...) over the last few
> months;
>
> Point: The anti war lobby are opposed to the war because all of the
> reasons put forward don't have sufficient evidence.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: There is enough evidence.
>
> Point: Anti-war does not mean Pacifist. It is simply the opposition to
> a particular war, whereas pacifism is opposition to any conflict or
> violence on any level.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No it isn't. Anti war is pacifism
>
> Point: The anti war lobby are concerned that the US will simply
> install another dictator and the lot of the Iraqi people will not
> improve.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No they're not. They don't really care about the
> Iraqi people.
>
> Point: Bell hasn't actually given any evidence to back up his views
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: Yes I have.
>
> Point: Every other poster here has at least given reasons why they
> feel the way they do, rather than avoiding questions and repeating the
> same statements.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No they haven't.
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
>
> Now, you may notice a theme here. That's right; bland statements with
> nothing to support them other than a vague implication that "I'm
> right, and you must accept unconditionally what I say".
>
> Oh, and if you're not reading goatboy's or my posts, how come you
> managed to respond to my post about anti-war and pacifism? I mean,
> realistically Goatboy and myself and Blank et al should really stop
> ridiculing you, as it's painfully clear to all observers that
> intellectually speacking you are the equivalent of a warm bowl of
> cockstock (and you're not even the board's main Pro-war poster; Dr
> Gonzo, Garin et al have provided intelligent debate and reasoning for
> their beliefs). But frankly, I derive the same guilty pleasure from
> this as one would from beating up a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone
> knows that you can't offer anything like a credible defence, but there
> are few more deserving of the beating.
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. Would it bad form to point out that you spelt retard wrong?
>
>
> Bell is great isn't he? Whenever he's faced with a point or a query or
> a fact he doesn't like, he simply says "No it isn't". I mean
> look at his posts (those hit and run pieces of rattle throwing that he
> musters when feeling especially brave anyway...) over the last few
> months;
>
> Point: The anti war lobby are opposed to the war because all of the
> reasons put forward don't have sufficient evidence.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: There is enough evidence.
>
> Point: Anti-war does not mean Pacifist. It is simply the opposition to
> a particular war, whereas pacifism is opposition to any conflict or
> violence on any level.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No it isn't. Anti war is pacifism
>
> Point: The anti war lobby are concerned that the US will simply
> install another dictator and the lot of the Iraqi people will not
> improve.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No they're not. They don't really care about the
> Iraqi people.
>
> Point: Bell hasn't actually given any evidence to back up his views
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: Yes I have.
>
> Point: Every other poster here has at least given reasons why they
> feel the way they do, rather than avoiding questions and repeating the
> same statements.
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: No they haven't.
>
> Point : (Any criticism of Bell)
>
> Bell's Counterpoint: You do the same thing.
>
> Now, you may notice a theme here. That's right; bland statements with
> nothing to support them other than a vague implication that "I'm
> right, and you must accept unconditionally what I say".
>
> Oh, and if you're not reading goatboy's or my posts, how come you
> managed to respond to my post about anti-war and pacifism? I mean,
> realistically Goatboy and myself and Blank et al should really stop
> ridiculing you, as it's painfully clear to all observers that
> intellectually speacking you are the equivalent of a warm bowl of
> cockstock (and you're not even the board's main Pro-war poster; Dr
> Gonzo, Garin et al have provided intelligent debate and reasoning for
> their beliefs). But frankly, I derive the same guilty pleasure from
> this as one would from beating up a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone
> knows that you can't offer anything like a credible defence, but there
> are few more deserving of the beating.
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.
Page: