The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This topic is not meant to cause offence so please accept my apologies if it does.
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
Page:
This topic is not meant to cause offence so please accept my apologies if it does.
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
Mr Lover Man wrote: Either
do we have to wait for a
> devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before
> people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than
> that of the Iraqi people.
---------
No.
No no no no no.
Do not link Sept 11th to Hussein as there is zero link whatsoever and to engender public anger and sympathy by hogtying Iraq and Sept 11th is lazy and factually incorrect.
Iraq has not, ever, at any point, launched an attack on anybody at all except for it's immediate neighbour.
Using nerve gas supplied by Pains Wessex, a UK based company.
There has not been a single recorded instance of Hussein acting hostile towards the west, has not been proven that he has undertaken any terrorist acts whatsoever towards ourselves, The United States, Spain or Bulgaria - the only countries supporting this war at the moment.
Whist Saddam serves no good being in power, there is no justification for using Sept 11th in any context whatsoever in regards to that situation.
Sorry but it's really getting me angry when lazy journalists casually try and strike fear/whip up public controversy by linking them.
do we have to wait for a
> devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before
> people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than
> that of the Iraqi people.
---------
No.
No no no no no.
Do not link Sept 11th to Hussein as there is zero link whatsoever and to engender public anger and sympathy by hogtying Iraq and Sept 11th is lazy and factually incorrect.
Iraq has not, ever, at any point, launched an attack on anybody at all except for it's immediate neighbour.
Using nerve gas supplied by Pains Wessex, a UK based company.
There has not been a single recorded instance of Hussein acting hostile towards the west, has not been proven that he has undertaken any terrorist acts whatsoever towards ourselves, The United States, Spain or Bulgaria - the only countries supporting this war at the moment.
Whist Saddam serves no good being in power, there is no justification for using Sept 11th in any context whatsoever in regards to that situation.
Sorry but it's really getting me angry when lazy journalists casually try and strike fear/whip up public controversy by linking them.
What i don't understand is how they propose to "disarm" Saddam by carpet bombing Baghdad with such ferocity that ANYONE living there will be decimated outright.
Exactly.
It was a bloody good post, I just got fed up with the Sept 11th reference.
Nice one though
It was a bloody good post, I just got fed up with the Sept 11th reference.
Nice one though
We should hold a referendum on the subject. That would seem to be the only way to sort it out.
Yes, but who would hold the referendum? Blair could easily get the results 'corrected' if he saw fit...I just hope Blair has a shred more credibility than we give him credit for.
Goatboy wrote:
> No.
> No no no no no.
> Do not link Sept 11th to Hussein as there is zero link whatsoever and
> to engender public anger and sympathy by hogtying Iraq and Sept 11th
> is lazy and factually incorrect.
You are taking what I've said out of context, I was not making a link between the two but you have decided to do so. I was showing that the devestation that was caused by the terrorist attacks of Sept 11th could be repeated if Saddam were to launch a chemical or biological attack not just on the West but on his own people as i stated he has done previously.
> No.
> No no no no no.
> Do not link Sept 11th to Hussein as there is zero link whatsoever and
> to engender public anger and sympathy by hogtying Iraq and Sept 11th
> is lazy and factually incorrect.
You are taking what I've said out of context, I was not making a link between the two but you have decided to do so. I was showing that the devestation that was caused by the terrorist attacks of Sept 11th could be repeated if Saddam were to launch a chemical or biological attack not just on the West but on his own people as i stated he has done previously.
LL CóòL †† wrote:
> Yes, but who would hold the referendum? Blair could easily get the
> results 'corrected' if he saw fit...I just hope Blair has a shred more
> credibility than we give him credit for.
We currently have the problem that all the polls you see on TV or in the Press say 85% say no to war, or one i saw at lunch-time today said 68% back Blair...what a load of rubbish. Taking a cross section of maybe 100-1000 people doesn't show you nothing. Do a proper survery and get everyone with a view or opinion to say yes or no to war based on facts and not the media rubbish that has been flying around.
> Yes, but who would hold the referendum? Blair could easily get the
> results 'corrected' if he saw fit...I just hope Blair has a shred more
> credibility than we give him credit for.
We currently have the problem that all the polls you see on TV or in the Press say 85% say no to war, or one i saw at lunch-time today said 68% back Blair...what a load of rubbish. Taking a cross section of maybe 100-1000 people doesn't show you nothing. Do a proper survery and get everyone with a view or opinion to say yes or no to war based on facts and not the media rubbish that has been flying around.
All I'll say is this;
I watched the supposed program last night, and like most things of that nature it had no value at all, the clap, as rightly pointed out, was pathetic and sad, but probably boosted the ego's of a few people there, if nothing else.
The one thing that perplexes me is this;
Why, in the face of opposition, polls, against many people's opinions, does Blair continue ? I discountthe theories saying he's Bush's poodle because that kind of talk is blatantly desperate and somewhat stupid in my opinion. What's the real reason, or does he know more than he's letting on... ?
I watched the supposed program last night, and like most things of that nature it had no value at all, the clap, as rightly pointed out, was pathetic and sad, but probably boosted the ego's of a few people there, if nothing else.
The one thing that perplexes me is this;
Why, in the face of opposition, polls, against many people's opinions, does Blair continue ? I discountthe theories saying he's Bush's poodle because that kind of talk is blatantly desperate and somewhat stupid in my opinion. What's the real reason, or does he know more than he's letting on... ?
Unbeliever wrote:
> What i don't understand is how they propose to "disarm"
> Saddam by carpet bombing Baghdad with such ferocity that ANYONE living
> there will be decimated outright.
What are your sources for such a claim?
This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
In the Gulf war 10% of the weapons used by the west were guided. Apparently the figure is likely to be 90% in the looming war.
This suggests that "Carpet Bombing" the Iraqi capital isn't dubya's plan.
> What i don't understand is how they propose to "disarm"
> Saddam by carpet bombing Baghdad with such ferocity that ANYONE living
> there will be decimated outright.
What are your sources for such a claim?
This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
In the Gulf war 10% of the weapons used by the west were guided. Apparently the figure is likely to be 90% in the looming war.
This suggests that "Carpet Bombing" the Iraqi capital isn't dubya's plan.
Page: