The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
According to early reports...
http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/ ?type=news&articleid=4599675&action=article
http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/ ?type=news&articleid=4599675&action=article
Page:
You've made your opinion clear, certainly. And I accept that that is your opinion, however much I disagree with it.
Now, would you like to clarify your opinion on "All ideas that meet with resistance are bad"?
Now, would you like to clarify your opinion on "All ideas that meet with resistance are bad"?
I haven't continued it because I've made my point on that, you on the other hand are avoding numerous things, not least the fact that the proof against Iraq is now massivel overwhelming......nice to see France will assist when Iraq uses the weapons France says it doesn't have....hmmm
Well, thats your opinion and you are of course entitled to it.
I notice that you've gone VERY quiet about your earlier "Idea's that meet with resistance" idea, however. Care to expand any more on that one? You haven't answered my last query about it...
I notice that you've gone VERY quiet about your earlier "Idea's that meet with resistance" idea, however. Care to expand any more on that one? You haven't answered my last query about it...
Light wrote:
> So, whilst we're at the "you suggest an alternative", you
> never suggested a viable alternative reason for this whole shebang
> other than oil. Care to continue with the schoolyard insults to
> distract from your lack of a theory?
Actually it's only you, and people like you, who say this is about oil. To everyone else it's stupidly clear; remove the regime, remove the weapons. And that's what is going to happen, despite all those who are happy to sit back and do nothing.
You're insanely naive if you think we can get any of his own people to kill him. Face it, he has to go, so now he goes, or we remove him. End of problem, we all know he'll not leave Iraq despite being given the chance to, and you, and others, will then still say it's the allies fault.
12 Years he's had to co-operate, and he hasn't. Well the clock just stopped. Game over. Better get those speeches written ready for when the true extent of Iraq's deception is unveiled.......
> So, whilst we're at the "you suggest an alternative", you
> never suggested a viable alternative reason for this whole shebang
> other than oil. Care to continue with the schoolyard insults to
> distract from your lack of a theory?
Actually it's only you, and people like you, who say this is about oil. To everyone else it's stupidly clear; remove the regime, remove the weapons. And that's what is going to happen, despite all those who are happy to sit back and do nothing.
You're insanely naive if you think we can get any of his own people to kill him. Face it, he has to go, so now he goes, or we remove him. End of problem, we all know he'll not leave Iraq despite being given the chance to, and you, and others, will then still say it's the allies fault.
12 Years he's had to co-operate, and he hasn't. Well the clock just stopped. Game over. Better get those speeches written ready for when the true extent of Iraq's deception is unveiled.......
Garin,
Fair enough. We agree to disagree then! Thanks for the argument (I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch...do we pay for 5 minutes or the full hour?)
Fair enough. We agree to disagree then! Thanks for the argument (I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch...do we pay for 5 minutes or the full hour?)
Star Fury wrote:
>
> That's got nothing to do with this, and you know it, besides. as you
> kpet banging on about back then, it's those who pay which are breaking
> the law and not those who solicit...... There is no need for a
> resistence anyway, it's already illegal !
Except that's not the case, is it? You said that any idea that met with resistance is a bad one. Those opposed to prostitution are not 'resisting' the idea by your definition, ergo it meets with no resistance. That's called logic. It'll help you in life.
>
> Yes you are stupid for thinking so, and I'd go reread your history of
> the League. It failed. The UN is no longer worth a bean, it's all
> about self interest and economics now, nothing else. It's no longer a
> credible authority. It lost it in 1998 when inspectors were thrown
> out, it lost it in 1999 when the Balkans happened, it lost it in 2001
> when, a few months after 9/11, unity disolved, when the first missile
> hits this week it loses it again.
Well, don't be too surprised when an unelected leader does whatever he wants regardless of international opinion. Oh....
> Yeah, we'll forget the millions of jews and russian eh ?They weren't
> OUR guys were they ? All just so you don't have to admit you were
> wrong this time......And ANY suspected commando's were killed
> instantly, so go do some more reading.
Dear oh dear...let go of the jews and russians eh? I've admitted it, so you can stop banging on about it. No mention of the fact their POW's suffered worse treatment? Thought not...
> Come on Light, tell us another
> plausible way we get Saddam out of the picture, and whilst you're
> there copy that idea to the Pentagon, Whitehall, and everyone else,
> 'cause it doesn't exist. Civilians will die, but Saddam has been
> killing them for 12 years and we've done jack all. What is it that
> makes so many convinced Saddam is such a nice chap ? It's beyond me.
Certainly; assassinate him. Or encourage certain of his entourage to do so. Not difficult (you even suggested it yourself) and a lot quicker and easier that massacring civilians in their thousands. And I see you've resorted to "You don't agree with me therefore you're Saddam's cheerleader" again. Always nice of you to signpost when you can't think of anything new to say.
So, whilst we're at the "you suggest an alternative", you never suggested a viable alternative reason for this whole shebang other than oil. Care to continue with the schoolyard insults to distract from your lack of a theory?
>
> That's got nothing to do with this, and you know it, besides. as you
> kpet banging on about back then, it's those who pay which are breaking
> the law and not those who solicit...... There is no need for a
> resistence anyway, it's already illegal !
Except that's not the case, is it? You said that any idea that met with resistance is a bad one. Those opposed to prostitution are not 'resisting' the idea by your definition, ergo it meets with no resistance. That's called logic. It'll help you in life.
>
> Yes you are stupid for thinking so, and I'd go reread your history of
> the League. It failed. The UN is no longer worth a bean, it's all
> about self interest and economics now, nothing else. It's no longer a
> credible authority. It lost it in 1998 when inspectors were thrown
> out, it lost it in 1999 when the Balkans happened, it lost it in 2001
> when, a few months after 9/11, unity disolved, when the first missile
> hits this week it loses it again.
Well, don't be too surprised when an unelected leader does whatever he wants regardless of international opinion. Oh....
> Yeah, we'll forget the millions of jews and russian eh ?They weren't
> OUR guys were they ? All just so you don't have to admit you were
> wrong this time......And ANY suspected commando's were killed
> instantly, so go do some more reading.
Dear oh dear...let go of the jews and russians eh? I've admitted it, so you can stop banging on about it. No mention of the fact their POW's suffered worse treatment? Thought not...
> Come on Light, tell us another
> plausible way we get Saddam out of the picture, and whilst you're
> there copy that idea to the Pentagon, Whitehall, and everyone else,
> 'cause it doesn't exist. Civilians will die, but Saddam has been
> killing them for 12 years and we've done jack all. What is it that
> makes so many convinced Saddam is such a nice chap ? It's beyond me.
Certainly; assassinate him. Or encourage certain of his entourage to do so. Not difficult (you even suggested it yourself) and a lot quicker and easier that massacring civilians in their thousands. And I see you've resorted to "You don't agree with me therefore you're Saddam's cheerleader" again. Always nice of you to signpost when you can't think of anything new to say.
So, whilst we're at the "you suggest an alternative", you never suggested a viable alternative reason for this whole shebang other than oil. Care to continue with the schoolyard insults to distract from your lack of a theory?
Psyİho Fox wrote:
> The only way i would believe we have captured Osama Bin Laden is if I
> am standing right in front of him pulling on his face to see if it is
> a fake mask, while he is being hanged on world television.
Actually i'll just settle for the execution on live television all around the world.
> The only way i would believe we have captured Osama Bin Laden is if I
> am standing right in front of him pulling on his face to see if it is
> a fake mask, while he is being hanged on world television.
Actually i'll just settle for the execution on live television all around the world.
Light wrote:
> Right...in that case, going back to our earlier argument about
> prostitution, it's legalisation is not meeting with any resistance as
> those opposed to it are not breaking the law, correct?
That's got nothing to do with this, and you know it, besides. as you kpet banging on about back then, it's those who pay which are breaking the law and not those who solicit...... There is no need for a resistence anyway, it's already illegal !
> I agree. France's "No war at all" is just as f*cking stupid
> as Dubya's "I wanna win my war for daddy" tantrums.
> Basically, I'm in favour of keeping the UN's legitimacy intact. And if
> anyone thinks I'm stupid for doing so, read the history of the League
> of Nations.
Yes you are stupid for thinking so, and I'd go reread your history of the League. It failed. The UN is no longer worth a bean, it's all about self interest and economics now, nothing else. It's no longer a credible authority. It lost it in 1998 when inspectors were thrown out, it lost it in 1999 when the Balkans happened, it lost it in 2001 when, a few months after 9/11, unity disolved, when the first missile hits this week it loses it again.
> Maybe so, but it doesn't make your point any less ludicrous ;-)
> Okay...I'm guilty of not defining what I meant re: the POW topic. Any
> captured Free French or British, non-Jewish soldier could actually
> look forward to being treated according to the Geneva convention by
> the nazi's. As a matter of fact, more German soldiers died in Allied
> internment camps than UK soldiers in Nazi ones.
Yeah, we'll forget the millions of jews and russian eh ?They weren't OUR guys were they ? All just so you don't have to admit you were wrong this time......And ANY suspected commando's were killed instantly, so go do some more reading.
> The Balkans thing: You're absolutely right. For what it's worth, that
> was an intervention that I was behind from the word go. But those set
> of circumstances are not these ones. That was a reaction to fairly
> brutal ethnic cleansing on Europe's doorstep, and generally speaking
> the public were in favour of that war. In this case, the public are
> against the war (sorry; using their freedom of speech to say that they
> may perhaps not agree with it but at the same time are not offering
> any resistance).
Actually polls are showing more and more support a war, anti war protest numbers died down this weekend, because people are seeing what the stakes are now. There is support for a war now, because so many see it is the only way to end Saddam's regime, and to my mind anyone who says any war is wrong in this circumstance is supporting Saddam's regime.
He will not go any other way. It's not the best way to get rid of him, but its the only way left now. Everyone who says war is not the way has one flaw, no other alternative. Come on Light, tell us another plausible way we get Saddam out of the picture, and whilst you're there copy that idea to the Pentagon, Whitehall, and everyone else, 'cause it doesn't exist. Civilians will die, but Saddam has been killing them for 12 years and we've done jack all. What is it that makes so many convinced Saddam is such a nice chap ? It's beyond me.
People will support our troops when the fighting inevitably starts, because those people are there to protect all of us, me, you, everyone, because they believe this country is worth protecting. Lets get behind them for doing a job most of couldn't or wouldn't.
We tried diplomacy, that got nothing, apart from smoke and mirrors. America, the UK, and Spain, and the other's should be applauded for having the courage to act now, because they will find the proof Saddam has hidden from the world, and then a lot of people are going to look awfully stupid.
> Right...in that case, going back to our earlier argument about
> prostitution, it's legalisation is not meeting with any resistance as
> those opposed to it are not breaking the law, correct?
That's got nothing to do with this, and you know it, besides. as you kpet banging on about back then, it's those who pay which are breaking the law and not those who solicit...... There is no need for a resistence anyway, it's already illegal !
> I agree. France's "No war at all" is just as f*cking stupid
> as Dubya's "I wanna win my war for daddy" tantrums.
> Basically, I'm in favour of keeping the UN's legitimacy intact. And if
> anyone thinks I'm stupid for doing so, read the history of the League
> of Nations.
Yes you are stupid for thinking so, and I'd go reread your history of the League. It failed. The UN is no longer worth a bean, it's all about self interest and economics now, nothing else. It's no longer a credible authority. It lost it in 1998 when inspectors were thrown out, it lost it in 1999 when the Balkans happened, it lost it in 2001 when, a few months after 9/11, unity disolved, when the first missile hits this week it loses it again.
> Maybe so, but it doesn't make your point any less ludicrous ;-)
> Okay...I'm guilty of not defining what I meant re: the POW topic. Any
> captured Free French or British, non-Jewish soldier could actually
> look forward to being treated according to the Geneva convention by
> the nazi's. As a matter of fact, more German soldiers died in Allied
> internment camps than UK soldiers in Nazi ones.
Yeah, we'll forget the millions of jews and russian eh ?They weren't OUR guys were they ? All just so you don't have to admit you were wrong this time......And ANY suspected commando's were killed instantly, so go do some more reading.
> The Balkans thing: You're absolutely right. For what it's worth, that
> was an intervention that I was behind from the word go. But those set
> of circumstances are not these ones. That was a reaction to fairly
> brutal ethnic cleansing on Europe's doorstep, and generally speaking
> the public were in favour of that war. In this case, the public are
> against the war (sorry; using their freedom of speech to say that they
> may perhaps not agree with it but at the same time are not offering
> any resistance).
Actually polls are showing more and more support a war, anti war protest numbers died down this weekend, because people are seeing what the stakes are now. There is support for a war now, because so many see it is the only way to end Saddam's regime, and to my mind anyone who says any war is wrong in this circumstance is supporting Saddam's regime.
He will not go any other way. It's not the best way to get rid of him, but its the only way left now. Everyone who says war is not the way has one flaw, no other alternative. Come on Light, tell us another plausible way we get Saddam out of the picture, and whilst you're there copy that idea to the Pentagon, Whitehall, and everyone else, 'cause it doesn't exist. Civilians will die, but Saddam has been killing them for 12 years and we've done jack all. What is it that makes so many convinced Saddam is such a nice chap ? It's beyond me.
People will support our troops when the fighting inevitably starts, because those people are there to protect all of us, me, you, everyone, because they believe this country is worth protecting. Lets get behind them for doing a job most of couldn't or wouldn't.
We tried diplomacy, that got nothing, apart from smoke and mirrors. America, the UK, and Spain, and the other's should be applauded for having the courage to act now, because they will find the proof Saddam has hidden from the world, and then a lot of people are going to look awfully stupid.
The only way i would believe we have captured Osama Bin Laden is if I am standing right in front of him pulling on his face to see if it is a fake mask, while he is being hanged on world television.
Light wrote:
> Plus, as I've said earlier, most people's 'gut' reaction is that Dubya
> is blundering into a situation that he doesn't understand nor care
> about, and that the war will create far more problems than it will
> solve.
Well, you've pretty much killed my will to respond any further. :) I did write a response, but when I realised I was just going back to your previous posts for quotes to highlight what I thought were inconsistences, I realised it was just a circular argument which was creating more points than answering them. There seemed to be a quite a large communication barrier for us somehow. :)
I've not changed my view however, I still think that the vast majority of people will believe what they want to irrespective of proof. I think people are quick to make moral judgement usually, they are gut reactions. And I'm not sure any amount of proof or facts will sway them especially when it comes to something like war.
> Plus, as I've said earlier, most people's 'gut' reaction is that Dubya
> is blundering into a situation that he doesn't understand nor care
> about, and that the war will create far more problems than it will
> solve.
Well, you've pretty much killed my will to respond any further. :) I did write a response, but when I realised I was just going back to your previous posts for quotes to highlight what I thought were inconsistences, I realised it was just a circular argument which was creating more points than answering them. There seemed to be a quite a large communication barrier for us somehow. :)
I've not changed my view however, I still think that the vast majority of people will believe what they want to irrespective of proof. I think people are quick to make moral judgement usually, they are gut reactions. And I'm not sure any amount of proof or facts will sway them especially when it comes to something like war.
Page: