The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 communist.
Why dont you just parade around with a big sign saying "I want to touch Saddamn's bottom"
Why dont you just parade around with a big sign saying "I want to touch Saddamn's bottom"
The American defence budget is $340 billion. Imagine what they could achieve if they plied it into resolving world poverty and social discrimination. Less, envious and desperate, people would consider the "rich" West as the route of their plight and this would lessen the threat to American/Western security via acts of terrorism. Leaders of such organisations wouldn't be able to use a ready supply of broken people, who are simply manipulated by promises of eternal wealth in heaven and legendary status on Earth as a Martyr, to carry out such artocities the world has witnessed in recent decades.
US bombers, with UK fighter support, to begin attacks Monday morning.
Ministers briefed yesterday.
*whoops*
Ah well, his email didn't say I couldnt mention it.
Ministers briefed yesterday.
*whoops*
Ah well, his email didn't say I couldnt mention it.
Exactly, I'm guessing that once Saddam is put out of action a new faction will move in, comply with the demands fully, and get the country on track.
It may be essential to have an international presence in country for some time to make sure that - as has so often happened thanks to the west - we don't replace Saddam with another likeminded soul.
As conflict gets closer - I'd put my neck on the line and not rule out action as close as Sunday - the chance of someone getting to Saddam may increase.
It may be essential to have an international presence in country for some time to make sure that - as has so often happened thanks to the west - we don't replace Saddam with another likeminded soul.
As conflict gets closer - I'd put my neck on the line and not rule out action as close as Sunday - the chance of someone getting to Saddam may increase.
Star Fury wrote:
> The best that can be hoped for now is that when fighting starts
> elements within Iraq will stop supporting him and end it sooner rather
> than later. Whilst I'm loathe to suggest it, all we need now is for
> one person to have a clear shot at him.......
---
Bang on.
My stance is that Hussein does need to be removed. Ideally I'd like to see it done through removal of sanctions allowing the country to get back in it's feet and the hold an internal election...but he's not going to allow that to happen.
If that dude can be snatched at the paltry cost of £27 million with no loss of lives on either side and billions saved through not using thousands of bombs - then why not a similar case with Hussein?
We know there are quiet little Spec-Ops groups on the ground, and I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that they've had him in their sights at least once.
That's all it takes - 1 shot and blame internal revolution due to the propoganda war being waged via emails and leaflet drops.
> The best that can be hoped for now is that when fighting starts
> elements within Iraq will stop supporting him and end it sooner rather
> than later. Whilst I'm loathe to suggest it, all we need now is for
> one person to have a clear shot at him.......
---
Bang on.
My stance is that Hussein does need to be removed. Ideally I'd like to see it done through removal of sanctions allowing the country to get back in it's feet and the hold an internal election...but he's not going to allow that to happen.
If that dude can be snatched at the paltry cost of £27 million with no loss of lives on either side and billions saved through not using thousands of bombs - then why not a similar case with Hussein?
We know there are quiet little Spec-Ops groups on the ground, and I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that they've had him in their sights at least once.
That's all it takes - 1 shot and blame internal revolution due to the propoganda war being waged via emails and leaflet drops.
Light wrote:
> Right, right...so when does it become resistance to an idea Bell? When
> does it cross that line from free speech to resistance? After all, you
> first mooted this idea of yours when it was about something you
> disagreed with, and so you claimed resistance = bad idea. Now it's
> something you agree with, so it's not resistance at all?
Resistence, to me, crosses the line of free speech when people begin to break the law in using their freedom - like those who attempted to break into RAF Fairford last weekend. People have the right to protest, but that is allowed within the law, where as they do not have sanction to break the law simply because they disagree with something, an idea which a minority of peace protestors have difficulty with.
If our government was really that bad, then resistence would be fine, but it isn't that bad. Resistence is often desperations, a last "Oh s*d it" move when you know that what you are doing won't change anything. I realise that it's very unfortunate this conflict comes at a time when Bush is in power, because his strategy is increasingly forgetting the fact that this is not 1991 again. Anyone with a brain knows that the new bomb tested last weekend is not one you want to use in an urban environment, in fact you don't want a ground invasion like the one that is planned because it will not work fast enough bar a miracle.
I respect the fact that many do not see the need for a war, but I also recognise that Saddam must go, and he will not do so any other way than by force, and I think anyone who believes otherwise if shortsighted. In that respect, despite thinking Bush has this wrong, I cannot support the call for no war at all if Saddam does not comply, which he is not fully doing.
The best that can be hoped for now is that when fighting starts elements within Iraq will stop supporting him and end it sooner rather than later. Whilst I'm loathe to suggest it, all we need now is for one person to have a clear shot at him.......
> Come on mate; you're making a pretty ludicrous statement to try and
> get out of admitting an earlier ludicrous statement was...well,
> ludicrous.
You mean like your ideas of the Nazi's and human rights, in the POW topic, which you've never replied to eh ? And you ignored the equally valid point that, though on dodgy international grounds, a nato assault on the Balkans worked, and ended that conflict. You're focusing on what you perceive as the flaws in my argument, but not addressing any of yours.
> Right, right...so when does it become resistance to an idea Bell? When
> does it cross that line from free speech to resistance? After all, you
> first mooted this idea of yours when it was about something you
> disagreed with, and so you claimed resistance = bad idea. Now it's
> something you agree with, so it's not resistance at all?
Resistence, to me, crosses the line of free speech when people begin to break the law in using their freedom - like those who attempted to break into RAF Fairford last weekend. People have the right to protest, but that is allowed within the law, where as they do not have sanction to break the law simply because they disagree with something, an idea which a minority of peace protestors have difficulty with.
If our government was really that bad, then resistence would be fine, but it isn't that bad. Resistence is often desperations, a last "Oh s*d it" move when you know that what you are doing won't change anything. I realise that it's very unfortunate this conflict comes at a time when Bush is in power, because his strategy is increasingly forgetting the fact that this is not 1991 again. Anyone with a brain knows that the new bomb tested last weekend is not one you want to use in an urban environment, in fact you don't want a ground invasion like the one that is planned because it will not work fast enough bar a miracle.
I respect the fact that many do not see the need for a war, but I also recognise that Saddam must go, and he will not do so any other way than by force, and I think anyone who believes otherwise if shortsighted. In that respect, despite thinking Bush has this wrong, I cannot support the call for no war at all if Saddam does not comply, which he is not fully doing.
The best that can be hoped for now is that when fighting starts elements within Iraq will stop supporting him and end it sooner rather than later. Whilst I'm loathe to suggest it, all we need now is for one person to have a clear shot at him.......
> Come on mate; you're making a pretty ludicrous statement to try and
> get out of admitting an earlier ludicrous statement was...well,
> ludicrous.
You mean like your ideas of the Nazi's and human rights, in the POW topic, which you've never replied to eh ? And you ignored the equally valid point that, though on dodgy international grounds, a nato assault on the Balkans worked, and ended that conflict. You're focusing on what you perceive as the flaws in my argument, but not addressing any of yours.
Garin wrote:
>
>
> Well firstly I'd say, do I really need to prove that? As you don't
> believe what the US/UK have said then I'd suggest the burden of proof
> isn't on me.
Yes, it does need to be proved. One cannot just say "This is so" and expect to be dazzled by the self evident truth in the statement. Proof is required, or are you saying we should start wars on a whim>
> Could I ever really prove it to your satisfaction
> anyway? I wonder what proof you'd require to believe it too. And if
> I could disprove your oil theory, would you accept war then? Or would
> you look to some other ulterior motive theory?
I would certainly look for the motives behind who provided the evidence, but the fact remains that no hard proof has been forthcoming, and saying "You wouldn't accept it anyway" does not change the fact that teh proof is not there,
> I can never prove it either way, and even
> if you could prove the oil theory, does it really negate the validity
> of war if removal of a legitimate threat to world peace was a primary
> goal too?
Well yes, because why is Iraq more of a threat than North Korea? Which country has threatened to nuke the US and Japan? Which country has threatened war in the last couple of months? Which country has admitted developing weapons of mass destruction?
I prefer to try to deal with whats in front of me. UK/US
> says they want to remove a legitimate threat to world peace. For me,
> the question is do I believe they are justified in that view. Just
> because I might think the answer is no, doesnt mean I'm going to then
> question their motives and end up condemning them for something which
> I cant really prove anyway.
Well, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you're also (it seems) trying to say that no-one else should question their motives, and it further seems that when the many and varied alternate reasons for the war are mooted you'd prefer them to be ignored.
Plus, you are assuming that Iraq are a threat to world peace; where is the proof? And if you say "We don't need proof" then isn't that a mandate for the US, or indeed anyone, to declare war on whomever they desire? Because if you are, then welcome to the WWIII: The Early years.
>
> I originally wrote a much longer post, but found myself engaging in
> too much idle speculation. :)
Oh, idle speculation is welcome!
>
>
> Well firstly I'd say, do I really need to prove that? As you don't
> believe what the US/UK have said then I'd suggest the burden of proof
> isn't on me.
Yes, it does need to be proved. One cannot just say "This is so" and expect to be dazzled by the self evident truth in the statement. Proof is required, or are you saying we should start wars on a whim>
> Could I ever really prove it to your satisfaction
> anyway? I wonder what proof you'd require to believe it too. And if
> I could disprove your oil theory, would you accept war then? Or would
> you look to some other ulterior motive theory?
I would certainly look for the motives behind who provided the evidence, but the fact remains that no hard proof has been forthcoming, and saying "You wouldn't accept it anyway" does not change the fact that teh proof is not there,
> I can never prove it either way, and even
> if you could prove the oil theory, does it really negate the validity
> of war if removal of a legitimate threat to world peace was a primary
> goal too?
Well yes, because why is Iraq more of a threat than North Korea? Which country has threatened to nuke the US and Japan? Which country has threatened war in the last couple of months? Which country has admitted developing weapons of mass destruction?
I prefer to try to deal with whats in front of me. UK/US
> says they want to remove a legitimate threat to world peace. For me,
> the question is do I believe they are justified in that view. Just
> because I might think the answer is no, doesnt mean I'm going to then
> question their motives and end up condemning them for something which
> I cant really prove anyway.
Well, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you're also (it seems) trying to say that no-one else should question their motives, and it further seems that when the many and varied alternate reasons for the war are mooted you'd prefer them to be ignored.
Plus, you are assuming that Iraq are a threat to world peace; where is the proof? And if you say "We don't need proof" then isn't that a mandate for the US, or indeed anyone, to declare war on whomever they desire? Because if you are, then welcome to the WWIII: The Early years.
>
> I originally wrote a much longer post, but found myself engaging in
> too much idle speculation. :)
Oh, idle speculation is welcome!
Right, right...so when does it become resistance to an idea Bell? When does it cross that line from free speech to resistance? After all, you first mooted this idea of yours when it was about something you disagreed with, and so you claimed resistance = bad idea. Now it's something you agree with, so it's not resistance at all?
Come on mate; you're making a pretty ludicrous statement to try and get out of admitting an earlier ludicrous statement was...well, ludicrous.
Come on mate; you're making a pretty ludicrous statement to try and get out of admitting an earlier ludicrous statement was...well, ludicrous.
Light wrote:
> Hello Garin,
>
> I've actually addressed the reasons for my belief the war is
> predominantly about oil elsewhere on the board, and I've also
> addressed my distaste for anti-americanism. If you like, I can repost
> them for you?
>
> What I would ask you is, where is your proof that the war is about the
> liberation of Iraq and the removal of a legitimate threat to world
> peace?
>
Well firstly I'd say, do I really need to prove that? As you don't believe what the US/UK have said then I'd suggest the burden of proof isn't on me. Could I ever really prove it to your satisfaction anyway? I wonder what proof you'd require to believe it too. And if I could disprove your oil theory, would you accept war then? Or would you look to some other ulterior motive theory?
This isn't a black and white situation and its made much worse by the fact that there is little clear cut information but infinite amounts of speculation (sometimes which is presented as fact). I suspect no matter what happens though, its a situation where everybody will feel their belief was justified in the end. From that point of view, I don't see much point in believing in darker motives for peoples actions in this scenario. I can never prove it either way, and even if you could prove the oil theory, does it really negate the validity of war if removal of a legitimate threat to world peace was a primary goal too? I prefer to try to deal with whats in front of me. UK/US says they want to remove a legitimate threat to world peace. For me, the question is do I believe they are justified in that view. Just because I might think the answer is no, doesnt mean I'm going to then question their motives and end up condemning them for something which I cant really prove anyway.
I originally wrote a much longer post, but found myself engaging in too much idle speculation. :)
> Hello Garin,
>
> I've actually addressed the reasons for my belief the war is
> predominantly about oil elsewhere on the board, and I've also
> addressed my distaste for anti-americanism. If you like, I can repost
> them for you?
>
> What I would ask you is, where is your proof that the war is about the
> liberation of Iraq and the removal of a legitimate threat to world
> peace?
>
Well firstly I'd say, do I really need to prove that? As you don't believe what the US/UK have said then I'd suggest the burden of proof isn't on me. Could I ever really prove it to your satisfaction anyway? I wonder what proof you'd require to believe it too. And if I could disprove your oil theory, would you accept war then? Or would you look to some other ulterior motive theory?
This isn't a black and white situation and its made much worse by the fact that there is little clear cut information but infinite amounts of speculation (sometimes which is presented as fact). I suspect no matter what happens though, its a situation where everybody will feel their belief was justified in the end. From that point of view, I don't see much point in believing in darker motives for peoples actions in this scenario. I can never prove it either way, and even if you could prove the oil theory, does it really negate the validity of war if removal of a legitimate threat to world peace was a primary goal too? I prefer to try to deal with whats in front of me. UK/US says they want to remove a legitimate threat to world peace. For me, the question is do I believe they are justified in that view. Just because I might think the answer is no, doesnt mean I'm going to then question their motives and end up condemning them for something which I cant really prove anyway.
I originally wrote a much longer post, but found myself engaging in too much idle speculation. :)
Light wrote:
> I see; all of the anti-war demo's, all of the political opposition to
> the war across the globe, all of the many and varied reasons why war
> without the UN is not a good thing...none of that is resistance?
No, it's freedom of speech. Every war or potential conflict is opposed by people who - and I'm not saying every anti war demostrator is like this - have made their minds up before anyone has said anything or given any evidence. People said it was wrong for NATO to attack Serbian forces in the Balkans, yet it went ahead, and now there is real progress, we ended that conflict and it was through a show of force.
> I see; all of the anti-war demo's, all of the political opposition to
> the war across the globe, all of the many and varied reasons why war
> without the UN is not a good thing...none of that is resistance?
No, it's freedom of speech. Every war or potential conflict is opposed by people who - and I'm not saying every anti war demostrator is like this - have made their minds up before anyone has said anything or given any evidence. People said it was wrong for NATO to attack Serbian forces in the Balkans, yet it went ahead, and now there is real progress, we ended that conflict and it was through a show of force.
Page: