The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Another man, in another time, gave this speech;
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who's acutally in the arena, whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who goes actually to do the deeds, who spends himself in a worthy cause, but at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worse, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that he plays fairly, never to be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
That man was President Theodore Roosevelt.
The same can be said of this moment in history where we are literally weeks away from a war, or a new peace.
Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone. All that remains now is victory or defeat, problem is that no one is quite sure what either means in this situation....
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who's acutally in the arena, whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who goes actually to do the deeds, who spends himself in a worthy cause, but at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worse, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that he plays fairly, never to be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
That man was President Theodore Roosevelt.
The same can be said of this moment in history where we are literally weeks away from a war, or a new peace.
Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone. All that remains now is victory or defeat, problem is that no one is quite sure what either means in this situation....
Page:
Star Fury wrote:
> Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony
> Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever
> their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually
> bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone.
----
??
The CIA install Hussein to counter The Ayatollah, who in turn over-threw The Shar - himself assisted by the CIA and MI5.
Both America and The UK supply Hussein with weapons and do precisely zero when the fact was brought to light about the gassing. Using a toxin produced by who?
Pains Wessex, a UK based company also responsible for producing landmines to be used in Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia.
The CIA put Hussein in because, in the words of the Radio 4 series discussing America's interventions in foreign government decisions "We'd rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy".
The ONLY reason we're facing this situation is because certain people decided they'd like to have Hussein in pol...ah what's the point?
Arguing politics over a ####ing computer achieves nothing.
Both countries can be faulted for creating, arming and assisting this "murderous despot".
Maybe America (the government) should have kept it's interfering fascist, world-police face out of the affairs of countries that have not at any point been a threat to us whatsoever or launched any kind of attack of any description.
And before anyone starts bleating about "Sept 11th!!!!", 9 of those were Saudi. But we like that country right now.
It's nothing more than global dick measuring and we will all pay eventually for the actions of a corporate-puppet, big business sponsored warmongering borderline mongoloid man that isn't even the elected President - I'm still aghast that the supposed "protector of the free world" was the victim of a coup-detat and nobody cares.
Bush doesn't have the interest of protecting his people at heart, he has the concerns of oil companies that funded his campaign and tell him what to do. I can't be bothered right now, but I'll provide links and research into Bush's cabinet and their links with corporate companies that have interests in bombing the hell out of Iraq.
Terrorism?
Please, maybe Bush should possibly halt the IRA from collecting funds?
Oh right, I forgot - we meant the Arab terrorists, not those cute Irish dudes.
I mean, what've they ever done?
We have world leaders calling each other names like little kids, our Prime Minister possibly willing to break international law by acting without UN consent, Bush desperately trying to prove himself to daddy and an increasingly unsettled Middle East.
Of course, it's cool to keep that region unsettled, because as long as they're killing each other they'll never stabilise and realise they could actually start dictating their own terms for how they live.
Saudi? America's mates.
Iran? They used to be enemy, but thanks to The Shah they were friends again. Except when the Ayatollah took over in a coup and Reagan was involved in the arms-for-hostages debacle (go look that little incident up kids and learn exactly how America deals with terrorists).
Somebody suggested something today and I'm honestly, 100% seriously considering it.
Should Blair decide to wage war without the support of his country (even his ministers have revolted and Claire Short threatened resignation) and without a UN Resolution, we are in breach of International Law.
And anybody, *anybody* can bring charges against Blair for war crimes.
Why not me? Why not you?
You hear all the time that 1 person should make their voice heard. So what's to stop a bloke that genuinely believes we are lying, murderous hypocrites from filing charges against Tony Blair for the illegal decleration of war without UN support?
I dont expect anyone to take this seriously, because we're a forum of blah blah blah, but something's coming.
Revolution? Maybe.
Civil Protest? Maybe.
We'll wait and see
> Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony
> Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever
> their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually
> bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone.
----
??
The CIA install Hussein to counter The Ayatollah, who in turn over-threw The Shar - himself assisted by the CIA and MI5.
Both America and The UK supply Hussein with weapons and do precisely zero when the fact was brought to light about the gassing. Using a toxin produced by who?
Pains Wessex, a UK based company also responsible for producing landmines to be used in Jakarta, Indonesia, Malaysia.
The CIA put Hussein in because, in the words of the Radio 4 series discussing America's interventions in foreign government decisions "We'd rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy".
The ONLY reason we're facing this situation is because certain people decided they'd like to have Hussein in pol...ah what's the point?
Arguing politics over a ####ing computer achieves nothing.
Both countries can be faulted for creating, arming and assisting this "murderous despot".
Maybe America (the government) should have kept it's interfering fascist, world-police face out of the affairs of countries that have not at any point been a threat to us whatsoever or launched any kind of attack of any description.
And before anyone starts bleating about "Sept 11th!!!!", 9 of those were Saudi. But we like that country right now.
It's nothing more than global dick measuring and we will all pay eventually for the actions of a corporate-puppet, big business sponsored warmongering borderline mongoloid man that isn't even the elected President - I'm still aghast that the supposed "protector of the free world" was the victim of a coup-detat and nobody cares.
Bush doesn't have the interest of protecting his people at heart, he has the concerns of oil companies that funded his campaign and tell him what to do. I can't be bothered right now, but I'll provide links and research into Bush's cabinet and their links with corporate companies that have interests in bombing the hell out of Iraq.
Terrorism?
Please, maybe Bush should possibly halt the IRA from collecting funds?
Oh right, I forgot - we meant the Arab terrorists, not those cute Irish dudes.
I mean, what've they ever done?
We have world leaders calling each other names like little kids, our Prime Minister possibly willing to break international law by acting without UN consent, Bush desperately trying to prove himself to daddy and an increasingly unsettled Middle East.
Of course, it's cool to keep that region unsettled, because as long as they're killing each other they'll never stabilise and realise they could actually start dictating their own terms for how they live.
Saudi? America's mates.
Iran? They used to be enemy, but thanks to The Shah they were friends again. Except when the Ayatollah took over in a coup and Reagan was involved in the arms-for-hostages debacle (go look that little incident up kids and learn exactly how America deals with terrorists).
Somebody suggested something today and I'm honestly, 100% seriously considering it.
Should Blair decide to wage war without the support of his country (even his ministers have revolted and Claire Short threatened resignation) and without a UN Resolution, we are in breach of International Law.
And anybody, *anybody* can bring charges against Blair for war crimes.
Why not me? Why not you?
You hear all the time that 1 person should make their voice heard. So what's to stop a bloke that genuinely believes we are lying, murderous hypocrites from filing charges against Tony Blair for the illegal decleration of war without UN support?
I dont expect anyone to take this seriously, because we're a forum of blah blah blah, but something's coming.
Revolution? Maybe.
Civil Protest? Maybe.
We'll wait and see
Another man, in another time, gave this speech;
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who's acutally in the arena, whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who goes actually to do the deeds, who spends himself in a worthy cause, but at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worse, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that he plays fairly, never to be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
That man was President Theodore Roosevelt.
The same can be said of this moment in history where we are literally weeks away from a war, or a new peace.
Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone. All that remains now is victory or defeat, problem is that no one is quite sure what either means in this situation....
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who's acutally in the arena, whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who goes actually to do the deeds, who spends himself in a worthy cause, but at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worse, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that he plays fairly, never to be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
That man was President Theodore Roosevelt.
The same can be said of this moment in history where we are literally weeks away from a war, or a new peace.
Bear in mind that the USA is not George Bush, that the UK is not Tony Blair, that both countries are made up of millions of people. Whatever their reasoning, both countries cannot be faulted for actually bringing the issue of Iraq to the attention of everyone. All that remains now is victory or defeat, problem is that no one is quite sure what either means in this situation....
Page: