The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
Whatever you think of me, I'll happily admit to being jobless, at least a real job anyway. Ebay's much more fun and far sufficient to keep the games, DVDS and spare cash flowing nicely thank you. I go to Uni three days a week, spend a few hours each week on work and dissertation prep work, and the rest of the week is mine.
Personally, I think you're the one doing a huff puff or whatever thing you refer to.
Noticeably, the actual topic here has all but disappeared in a tirade of verbal exchanges, but never mind eh ? Of course by pointing this out I suppose I'm trying to change the topic aren't I ?
Still, let's turn too a few bits of evidence from http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Go to the bottom of the page to view increasingly desperate statements about their protests and reasoning.
Let's look first at;
"4. The Americans and British showed their war aims by early on taking over the 600 oil wells."
Apparently, with actual proof that these have been actually taken by the coalition, and not just protected as is the case, the argument now runs that these wells money will be used to fill US companies pockets for rebuilding. Hang on though, what about the explosives the Iraqi's had planted on them, and those wells which were set alight ? No mention of them of course ! And again, the wording they use is all wrong. They argue that the oil is the PROPERTY of the Iraqi people but that the fact REVENUES from it will be used to pay reconstruction companies in the US affects this. Wrong again, the Iraqi people still own them, and the US companies are the biggest and most experienced to do this job. Much of the work that will be done should have been done by the regime, but wasn't.
So, no proof the oil was the motive, once more.
Now,
"2.The war is by no means over. There is still fighting in many parts of the country, the Kurds have entered Kirkuk in the north, there is massive instability. Bombing of Tikrit is still going on"
Sure, it's not over, but bombing ? Nope, seeing as every reported there in Tikrit is wandering around on camera in shirt sleeves. The Kurds ? Yes, they've entered what was once their territory taken from them, but we'll ignore what Saddam did to them won't we Stop The War ? Massive instability, now that's generalisation.
Now the big one
"1.The country has been invaded in a war of conquest not liberation. Iraq is to be occupied by the US military, headed up by Jay Garner, a pro Israeli retired general who is unelected and unaccountable to any of the Iraqi people. The main Iraqi figurehead proposed by the Americans is the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, a banker who has not lived in Iraq for 45 years, whose close links with the CIA make him their ideal candidate. The country will be run as a colony of the west. "
This would be the colony where troop numbers are decreasing by the day then, yes ? Thought so. Unelected and unaccountable to Iraqi people ? Fair point, but the same cannot be said of the UN and those back in the coalition countries themselves. Added to that the fact that Ahmed Chalabi is not quite the villian made out by them. His CIA links were due to him helping funnel money to the Kurds, who having had several thousand of their number gassed and nobody else stepped in, making this linkage somewhat justified. And why has the guy not lived in Iraq for 45 years ? He opposed Saddam in the last 20 odd of those and he's an expatriate. I assume we can all agree on what happened to those who opposed Saddam and came to Iraq ? Now his conviction, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ business/2953109.stm goes someway to explaining it in basic, suffice to say that if he were to be tried in a democratic country with a fair legal system then he'd not even make court. All in all it looks like Stop The War have been VERY selective in their facts.
And very unfortunate to have supported Mr George Galloway.
Having read the frontpage, and the other links from the site, I get the impression that Stop The War cares more about the fact the USA is doing this rather than about anything else, after all I've pointed out just a few instances where the site turns a blind eye to Saddam's regimes antics.
Plus I think from the group's frontpage that any association with the WWP is going to be pretty hard to disprove....
*waits for next post which he's sure only himself, Goatboy and Light are actually reading, or at least skimming through, or ignoring ansd just posting whatever they feel like*
Whatever you think of me, I'll happily admit to being jobless, at least a real job anyway. Ebay's much more fun and far sufficient to keep the games, DVDS and spare cash flowing nicely thank you. I go to Uni three days a week, spend a few hours each week on work and dissertation prep work, and the rest of the week is mine.
Personally, I think you're the one doing a huff puff or whatever thing you refer to.
Noticeably, the actual topic here has all but disappeared in a tirade of verbal exchanges, but never mind eh ? Of course by pointing this out I suppose I'm trying to change the topic aren't I ?
Still, let's turn too a few bits of evidence from http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Go to the bottom of the page to view increasingly desperate statements about their protests and reasoning.
Let's look first at;
"4. The Americans and British showed their war aims by early on taking over the 600 oil wells."
Apparently, with actual proof that these have been actually taken by the coalition, and not just protected as is the case, the argument now runs that these wells money will be used to fill US companies pockets for rebuilding. Hang on though, what about the explosives the Iraqi's had planted on them, and those wells which were set alight ? No mention of them of course ! And again, the wording they use is all wrong. They argue that the oil is the PROPERTY of the Iraqi people but that the fact REVENUES from it will be used to pay reconstruction companies in the US affects this. Wrong again, the Iraqi people still own them, and the US companies are the biggest and most experienced to do this job. Much of the work that will be done should have been done by the regime, but wasn't.
So, no proof the oil was the motive, once more.
Now,
"2.The war is by no means over. There is still fighting in many parts of the country, the Kurds have entered Kirkuk in the north, there is massive instability. Bombing of Tikrit is still going on"
Sure, it's not over, but bombing ? Nope, seeing as every reported there in Tikrit is wandering around on camera in shirt sleeves. The Kurds ? Yes, they've entered what was once their territory taken from them, but we'll ignore what Saddam did to them won't we Stop The War ? Massive instability, now that's generalisation.
Now the big one
"1.The country has been invaded in a war of conquest not liberation. Iraq is to be occupied by the US military, headed up by Jay Garner, a pro Israeli retired general who is unelected and unaccountable to any of the Iraqi people. The main Iraqi figurehead proposed by the Americans is the convicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, a banker who has not lived in Iraq for 45 years, whose close links with the CIA make him their ideal candidate. The country will be run as a colony of the west. "
This would be the colony where troop numbers are decreasing by the day then, yes ? Thought so. Unelected and unaccountable to Iraqi people ? Fair point, but the same cannot be said of the UN and those back in the coalition countries themselves. Added to that the fact that Ahmed Chalabi is not quite the villian made out by them. His CIA links were due to him helping funnel money to the Kurds, who having had several thousand of their number gassed and nobody else stepped in, making this linkage somewhat justified. And why has the guy not lived in Iraq for 45 years ? He opposed Saddam in the last 20 odd of those and he's an expatriate. I assume we can all agree on what happened to those who opposed Saddam and came to Iraq ? Now his conviction, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ business/2953109.stm goes someway to explaining it in basic, suffice to say that if he were to be tried in a democratic country with a fair legal system then he'd not even make court. All in all it looks like Stop The War have been VERY selective in their facts.
And very unfortunate to have supported Mr George Galloway.
Having read the frontpage, and the other links from the site, I get the impression that Stop The War cares more about the fact the USA is doing this rather than about anything else, after all I've pointed out just a few instances where the site turns a blind eye to Saddam's regimes antics.
Plus I think from the group's frontpage that any association with the WWP is going to be pretty hard to disprove....
*waits for next post which he's sure only himself, Goatboy and Light are actually reading, or at least skimming through, or ignoring ansd just posting whatever they feel like*
Goatboy wrote:
> "And we now cross live to our correspondant for the utterly
> pointless...Mikelar!"
> "Muuuuuuuuuuuuh"
It's a dirty job but etc etc etc.
> "And we now cross live to our correspondant for the utterly
> pointless...Mikelar!"
> "Muuuuuuuuuuuuh"
It's a dirty job but etc etc etc.
Star Fury wrote:
> Links for that evidence ? No one with a sense of awareness needs
> links, boy.
---
Uh-uh mongoloid, you dont dodge it that easy.
There are far more intelligent pro-war posters here than you, and you can't provide links.
Refuse to back up your posts beyond "I said it's evidence"
Because there is none.
Because you are a mongoloid.
And c'mon punchy, try and at least be original. "Boy"?
Bwahahaha - coming from a teen that lives at home with his parents and has no job (except for the Woolies thing a few months ago).
You see mongoloid, if someone calls you kid, and you retort with "boy", you've been beaten to the punch. It has no sting, you're left looking like a red-faced sulky virgin who's been exposed as a mindless 'tard with the barest grasp of the world, gleaned only from a quick skim of The Daily Mail and Young Conservative Weekly.
And both myself, Light, Grix etc have already pointed out that *you* have the insistent need on quitting this forum, then stamping back in because you've just got to get the last word in - your water-filled skull demands that you try and salvage some flotilla of dignity from the tide of fuckwittery you spout daily.
Where's yer evidence kid? And I mean more than "It's clear" - I'm calling you on that. Prove your statements with links.
You've been wrong on anti-war and pacifism.
You've been wrong on your sweeping statements on what the anti-war lobby want, their motives or even reasons.
*shakes head*
I'll discuss (not argue) the Iraq Situation with Dr Gonzo et al that have diametrically opposed views to my own, yet provide their reasons and links for why they believe so.
Instead of your huffy little feet-stampings.
And I absolutely *promise* you'll retort with
(a) I know you are but what am I?
(b) If you need links I wont bother
(c) I'll tell my mum on you
(d) I'm quitting this forum because I'm so right and intelligent.
Pft
*waves hand*
I'm off out now, but I'll pop back tomorrow to see your reply and to read the links to the sweeping mongoloid statements you made below.
> Links for that evidence ? No one with a sense of awareness needs
> links, boy.
---
Uh-uh mongoloid, you dont dodge it that easy.
There are far more intelligent pro-war posters here than you, and you can't provide links.
Refuse to back up your posts beyond "I said it's evidence"
Because there is none.
Because you are a mongoloid.
And c'mon punchy, try and at least be original. "Boy"?
Bwahahaha - coming from a teen that lives at home with his parents and has no job (except for the Woolies thing a few months ago).
You see mongoloid, if someone calls you kid, and you retort with "boy", you've been beaten to the punch. It has no sting, you're left looking like a red-faced sulky virgin who's been exposed as a mindless 'tard with the barest grasp of the world, gleaned only from a quick skim of The Daily Mail and Young Conservative Weekly.
And both myself, Light, Grix etc have already pointed out that *you* have the insistent need on quitting this forum, then stamping back in because you've just got to get the last word in - your water-filled skull demands that you try and salvage some flotilla of dignity from the tide of fuckwittery you spout daily.
Where's yer evidence kid? And I mean more than "It's clear" - I'm calling you on that. Prove your statements with links.
You've been wrong on anti-war and pacifism.
You've been wrong on your sweeping statements on what the anti-war lobby want, their motives or even reasons.
*shakes head*
I'll discuss (not argue) the Iraq Situation with Dr Gonzo et al that have diametrically opposed views to my own, yet provide their reasons and links for why they believe so.
Instead of your huffy little feet-stampings.
And I absolutely *promise* you'll retort with
(a) I know you are but what am I?
(b) If you need links I wont bother
(c) I'll tell my mum on you
(d) I'm quitting this forum because I'm so right and intelligent.
Pft
*waves hand*
I'm off out now, but I'll pop back tomorrow to see your reply and to read the links to the sweeping mongoloid statements you made below.
Goatboy wrote:
> Oh, and yet again your "evidence" consists of you saying
> "This is the case" without any backing up with links etc.
> Pft.
>
> Never said it was a war for oil.
> Never said Hussein should be left there.
> And you were so dumb for your "anti-war means pacifist"
> comment, which you haven't responded to.
> Just as you were quick to disappear from a debate about Chomsky when
> it became blindingly obvious you hadn't actually read anything by him
> at all.
>
> And you still haven't answered my questions from a few pages back,
> apart from some excuse about "I just wrote it for a
> reaction"
> Kid, you got beat and went on the offensive because you were shown to
> be the mongoloid, groupthink, armchair Thatcher you are.
>
> For a, what?...18/19yr old you like to think you're the font of all
> knowledge.
> I can't wait for you get out into the world, reality will slap you so
> hard across the face it'll knock Bush's **** from your slack mouth.
>
> *dusts hands*
>
> Now run along Mongoloid and kill yourself.
> Go on.
My, this is all very repetitive isn't it ? For someone who seems convinced my posts here are meaningless and crap you're sure posting plenty of replies.
Links for that evidence ? No one with a sense of awareness needs links, both you and Light have frequently said this was about Bush and Oil, and the rest of the evidence is backed by very real TV pictures, with a couple of exceptions, unless you'd like to say those pictures from Iraq were filmed by a crew out in Whitesands ala Wag The Dog ?
Once again, we see you demonstrating my point that to you anyone who does not agree with you is loony tune, a waste of space e.t.c.
I think you are the one who needs a dose of reality, but not to worry, if you're still smoking then I'm safe in the knowledge that you sir will be dead be for me.
So if I were to say to you, "Go on, kill yourself, DO IT!!!" and you stuck one of your little cancer sticks in your mouth, then you'd be doing it :)
Go on, go light one up happy boy.
> Oh, and yet again your "evidence" consists of you saying
> "This is the case" without any backing up with links etc.
> Pft.
>
> Never said it was a war for oil.
> Never said Hussein should be left there.
> And you were so dumb for your "anti-war means pacifist"
> comment, which you haven't responded to.
> Just as you were quick to disappear from a debate about Chomsky when
> it became blindingly obvious you hadn't actually read anything by him
> at all.
>
> And you still haven't answered my questions from a few pages back,
> apart from some excuse about "I just wrote it for a
> reaction"
> Kid, you got beat and went on the offensive because you were shown to
> be the mongoloid, groupthink, armchair Thatcher you are.
>
> For a, what?...18/19yr old you like to think you're the font of all
> knowledge.
> I can't wait for you get out into the world, reality will slap you so
> hard across the face it'll knock Bush's **** from your slack mouth.
>
> *dusts hands*
>
> Now run along Mongoloid and kill yourself.
> Go on.
My, this is all very repetitive isn't it ? For someone who seems convinced my posts here are meaningless and crap you're sure posting plenty of replies.
Links for that evidence ? No one with a sense of awareness needs links, both you and Light have frequently said this was about Bush and Oil, and the rest of the evidence is backed by very real TV pictures, with a couple of exceptions, unless you'd like to say those pictures from Iraq were filmed by a crew out in Whitesands ala Wag The Dog ?
Once again, we see you demonstrating my point that to you anyone who does not agree with you is loony tune, a waste of space e.t.c.
I think you are the one who needs a dose of reality, but not to worry, if you're still smoking then I'm safe in the knowledge that you sir will be dead be for me.
So if I were to say to you, "Go on, kill yourself, DO IT!!!" and you stuck one of your little cancer sticks in your mouth, then you'd be doing it :)
Go on, go light one up happy boy.
Anyone mind if I add fuel to the fire by saying that the three private businessmen in the USA that stood to gain the most from the change in oil price as a result of the war are Bush, Cheney and Powell? 's true.
"And we now cross live to our correspondant for the utterly pointless...Mikelar!"
"Muuuuuuuuuuuuh"
"Muuuuuuuuuuuuh"
Hey, if I thought it would give him the little push needed, I would.
*taps fingers on desk and awaits the inevitable red-faced flurry of links and TOLD YOU! post that will follow*
*taps fingers on desk and awaits the inevitable red-faced flurry of links and TOLD YOU! post that will follow*
You missed 'Do it'.
Oh, and yet again your "evidence" consists of you saying "This is the case" without any backing up with links etc.
Pft.
Never said it was a war for oil.
Never said Hussein should be left there.
And you were so dumb for your "anti-war means pacifist" comment, which you haven't responded to.
Just as you were quick to disappear from a debate about Chomsky when it became blindingly obvious you hadn't actually read anything by him at all.
And you still haven't answered my questions from a few pages back, apart from some excuse about "I just wrote it for a reaction"
Kid, you got beat and went on the offensive because you were shown to be the mongoloid, groupthink, armchair Thatcher you are.
For a, what?...18/19yr old you like to think you're the font of all knowledge.
I can't wait for you get out into the world, reality will slap you so hard across the face it'll knock Bush's **** from your slack mouth.
*dusts hands*
Now run along Mongoloid and kill yourself.
Go on.
Pft.
Never said it was a war for oil.
Never said Hussein should be left there.
And you were so dumb for your "anti-war means pacifist" comment, which you haven't responded to.
Just as you were quick to disappear from a debate about Chomsky when it became blindingly obvious you hadn't actually read anything by him at all.
And you still haven't answered my questions from a few pages back, apart from some excuse about "I just wrote it for a reaction"
Kid, you got beat and went on the offensive because you were shown to be the mongoloid, groupthink, armchair Thatcher you are.
For a, what?...18/19yr old you like to think you're the font of all knowledge.
I can't wait for you get out into the world, reality will slap you so hard across the face it'll knock Bush's **** from your slack mouth.
*dusts hands*
Now run along Mongoloid and kill yourself.
Go on.
For somebody that doesn't care, you sho'nuff post enough Bell.
*packs away rod and boxes tackle*
You're easier to play than Starfox.
Mongoloid.
And I would respond with serious debate, but it's like beating a kitten.
Run along retard.
*pats head and saunters away*
*packs away rod and boxes tackle*
You're easier to play than Starfox.
Mongoloid.
And I would respond with serious debate, but it's like beating a kitten.
Run along retard.
*pats head and saunters away*
Page: