The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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?
Finally, I agree with you about France; their blinkered "No war at any cost" is equally as dangerous to international stability as "War at any cost" as foisted on us by about 200 men and women in the US and UK. And, like the US, their motivation is also oil.
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?
Finally, I agree with you about France; their blinkered "No war at any cost" is equally as dangerous to international stability as "War at any cost" as foisted on us by about 200 men and women in the US and UK. And, like the US, their motivation is also oil.
Star Fury wrote:
> It isn't resistance.
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?
I'm intrigued to know what your definition of resistance is. It seems to be "Things that I don't agree with". I mean, our views on this subject differ, but to try and weasel your way out of an earlier statement made by yourself by baldly denying that the resistance to war even exists...well, it sort of shuts out reality, non?
> It isn't resistance.
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?
I'm intrigued to know what your definition of resistance is. It seems to be "Things that I don't agree with". I mean, our views on this subject differ, but to try and weasel your way out of an earlier statement made by yourself by baldly denying that the resistance to war even exists...well, it sort of shuts out reality, non?
Star Fury wrote:
> Blair's plan is more than an attempt at credibility, it could work, it
> won't because Iraq will not comply with it because the demands are too
> clear. They can't mess around with them, they are all either clear yes
> or no points. If there is no second resolution then we should still go
> for it, if for nothing else other than to find the evidence which has
> avoided us for this long, having gone this far, we need to be a part
> of it.
No, not really. Look around at the threat of mass resignations if he decides to go ahead with a war without the second resolution. He quite clearly stated on national TV in front of everyone that he wouldn't go to war without a second resolution. If he does regene on that statement they'll be a public furore. He will lose his job over it, not to mention most of his staunchest supporters in the cabinet. All for the sake of what he perceives as a threat yet can not supply any evidence to back up his convictions, apart from laughable plagiarised documents that were exposed for the shams they truly were.
> Blair's plan is more than an attempt at credibility, it could work, it
> won't because Iraq will not comply with it because the demands are too
> clear. They can't mess around with them, they are all either clear yes
> or no points. If there is no second resolution then we should still go
> for it, if for nothing else other than to find the evidence which has
> avoided us for this long, having gone this far, we need to be a part
> of it.
No, not really. Look around at the threat of mass resignations if he decides to go ahead with a war without the second resolution. He quite clearly stated on national TV in front of everyone that he wouldn't go to war without a second resolution. If he does regene on that statement they'll be a public furore. He will lose his job over it, not to mention most of his staunchest supporters in the cabinet. All for the sake of what he perceives as a threat yet can not supply any evidence to back up his convictions, apart from laughable plagiarised documents that were exposed for the shams they truly were.
Unbeliever wrote:
> The six point plan is fair enough but it's just an attempt by Blair to
> get credibility in light of the veto situation. As he stated quite
> clearly on national TV - he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd
> resolution and, since this nows seems an ever-more distant
> possibility, he's trying to impose his own requirements in spite of
> the UN's decisions.
>
> Ok, he did say there was one possibility that Britain would go to war
> without a 2nd resolution and that was if the weapons inspectors
> weren't allowed to do their job. But, since Iraq seems to be
> complying, whatever "plans" Blairs brings about is of no
> consequence - they have to be put before the UN for discussion before
> being embraced.
So, really, by that assessment, Blair can't win. Iraq is not fully complying, yesterday's parade of UAV's was a frankly hilarious farce. As many have pointed out, where were the bays for camera's e.t.c that Iraq claims it uses them for ? There were none, they were fake.
Blair's plan is more than an attempt at credibility, it could work, it won't because Iraq will not comply with it because the demands are too clear. They can't mess around with them, they are all either clear yes or no points. If there is no second resolution then we should still go for it, if for nothing else other than to find the evidence which has avoided us for this long, having gone this far, we need to be a part of it.
> The six point plan is fair enough but it's just an attempt by Blair to
> get credibility in light of the veto situation. As he stated quite
> clearly on national TV - he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd
> resolution and, since this nows seems an ever-more distant
> possibility, he's trying to impose his own requirements in spite of
> the UN's decisions.
>
> Ok, he did say there was one possibility that Britain would go to war
> without a 2nd resolution and that was if the weapons inspectors
> weren't allowed to do their job. But, since Iraq seems to be
> complying, whatever "plans" Blairs brings about is of no
> consequence - they have to be put before the UN for discussion before
> being embraced.
So, really, by that assessment, Blair can't win. Iraq is not fully complying, yesterday's parade of UAV's was a frankly hilarious farce. As many have pointed out, where were the bays for camera's e.t.c that Iraq claims it uses them for ? There were none, they were fake.
Blair's plan is more than an attempt at credibility, it could work, it won't because Iraq will not comply with it because the demands are too clear. They can't mess around with them, they are all either clear yes or no points. If there is no second resolution then we should still go for it, if for nothing else other than to find the evidence which has avoided us for this long, having gone this far, we need to be a part of it.
Light wrote:
> Then if that is the case, why strike at a nation who's links to
> Al-Quaida are entirely unproven? Why punish Arab sponsors of terrorism
> whilst continuing to turn a blind eye to oppression of Palestinian
> suffering? Don't you think that maybe this will give terrorists more
> poor fools rallying to their cause, and blowing up innocent people
> because of Dubya et al's lust for oil?
I won't fully respond to what you've said because basically, I don't agree with any of it, and I think you have quite enough people to debate with as it is without me. :)
But one thing you've said raised a chuckle for me. And thats "because of Dubya et al's lust for oil", well wheres your proof of that? Some seemingly dismiss war with Iraq based upon lack of proof and/or justification. And yet fall so easily into the US' supposed reason for war, oil. Maybe that is the reason, but its difficult to believe the evidence is anymore compelling than Iraq has chemical weapons especially as alot of it is based upon the character of the participants.
As a side point, I think theres a pretty strong argument for liberating Iraq for the oil, even if you might have problems with the morality of it.
Anti-US sentiment seems to be a part of popular culture these days and it seems to be the basis for alot of peoples views on these subjects (not directed at anybody in particular in this forum). Oh its the US, it must be wrong. Interesting that people can understand and empathize with people in Iraq, with Palestinians and so on. And yet all they can manage with a country that we probably have the most common ground with is a huge dose of cynicism.
France's behaviour frightens me much more than the US at present. Whether you agree with what the US wants to do or not, you have to live in reality. The US is a super power, and its influence (rightly or wrongly) is huge, but the french seem determined to isolate them and totally unwilling to find any common ground. I think history has some things to say about that particular course of action. :)
Well anyway, different topic really.
> Then if that is the case, why strike at a nation who's links to
> Al-Quaida are entirely unproven? Why punish Arab sponsors of terrorism
> whilst continuing to turn a blind eye to oppression of Palestinian
> suffering? Don't you think that maybe this will give terrorists more
> poor fools rallying to their cause, and blowing up innocent people
> because of Dubya et al's lust for oil?
I won't fully respond to what you've said because basically, I don't agree with any of it, and I think you have quite enough people to debate with as it is without me. :)
But one thing you've said raised a chuckle for me. And thats "because of Dubya et al's lust for oil", well wheres your proof of that? Some seemingly dismiss war with Iraq based upon lack of proof and/or justification. And yet fall so easily into the US' supposed reason for war, oil. Maybe that is the reason, but its difficult to believe the evidence is anymore compelling than Iraq has chemical weapons especially as alot of it is based upon the character of the participants.
As a side point, I think theres a pretty strong argument for liberating Iraq for the oil, even if you might have problems with the morality of it.
Anti-US sentiment seems to be a part of popular culture these days and it seems to be the basis for alot of peoples views on these subjects (not directed at anybody in particular in this forum). Oh its the US, it must be wrong. Interesting that people can understand and empathize with people in Iraq, with Palestinians and so on. And yet all they can manage with a country that we probably have the most common ground with is a huge dose of cynicism.
France's behaviour frightens me much more than the US at present. Whether you agree with what the US wants to do or not, you have to live in reality. The US is a super power, and its influence (rightly or wrongly) is huge, but the french seem determined to isolate them and totally unwilling to find any common ground. I think history has some things to say about that particular course of action. :)
Well anyway, different topic really.
Ok, maybe I was jumping the gun. I didn't mean to infer you meant that. Point taken.
The six point plan is fair enough but it's just an attempt by Blair to get credibility in light of the veto situation. As he stated quite clearly on national TV - he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution and, since this nows seems an ever-more distant possibility, he's trying to impose his own requirements in spite of the UN's decisions.
Ok, he did say there was one possibility that Britain would go to war without a 2nd resolution and that was if the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their job. But, since Iraq seems to be complying, whatever "plans" Blairs brings about is of no consequence - they have to be put before the UN for discussion before being embraced.
The six point plan is fair enough but it's just an attempt by Blair to get credibility in light of the veto situation. As he stated quite clearly on national TV - he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution and, since this nows seems an ever-more distant possibility, he's trying to impose his own requirements in spite of the UN's decisions.
Ok, he did say there was one possibility that Britain would go to war without a 2nd resolution and that was if the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to do their job. But, since Iraq seems to be complying, whatever "plans" Blairs brings about is of no consequence - they have to be put before the UN for discussion before being embraced.
Unbeliever wrote:
> A similar situation to before WW2? That's a very misguided belief.
>
> So, the obvious way to stop Iraq producing WOMD is by invading with
> over 200,000 troops as well as dropping your own untested WOMD over
> Iraq?
So where do I actually say the best way to do that is to invade eh ? Oh dear I didn't....
Where have I actually said the solution is that ? Nowhere, because it's far from the best solution. The new "mother of all bombs" (I assume this is the untested - you're wrong about that by the way - weapon you refer to) is frankly an insane idea for a built up area, and I think the Pentagon knows that, but to the Iraqi soldiers who have been brought up to believe America is the great satan it will be a credible threat.
Like it or not, the presence of so many troops has pressured Iraq into some compliance, it just needs to go that step further to avoid war, which under Blair's six point plan it can do easily. All those six demands can be fulfilled in days, because it deals with what Iraq has said it has.
If it has them, it can show them, and it's admitted it has what those six points concern, so what's the problem ?
> A similar situation to before WW2? That's a very misguided belief.
>
> So, the obvious way to stop Iraq producing WOMD is by invading with
> over 200,000 troops as well as dropping your own untested WOMD over
> Iraq?
So where do I actually say the best way to do that is to invade eh ? Oh dear I didn't....
Where have I actually said the solution is that ? Nowhere, because it's far from the best solution. The new "mother of all bombs" (I assume this is the untested - you're wrong about that by the way - weapon you refer to) is frankly an insane idea for a built up area, and I think the Pentagon knows that, but to the Iraqi soldiers who have been brought up to believe America is the great satan it will be a credible threat.
Like it or not, the presence of so many troops has pressured Iraq into some compliance, it just needs to go that step further to avoid war, which under Blair's six point plan it can do easily. All those six demands can be fulfilled in days, because it deals with what Iraq has said it has.
If it has them, it can show them, and it's admitted it has what those six points concern, so what's the problem ?
A similar situation to before WW2? That's a very misguided belief.
So, the obvious way to stop Iraq producing WOMD is by invading with over 200,000 troops as well as dropping your own untested WOMD over Iraq?
Yep, that make perfect sense to me - obliterate the whole country and wipe out as many people as possible, seize the oilfields, set up a pro-democratic state that sells oil to the US cheaper than other producers; thereby undercutting the competition and gain a foothold in the Middle East in order to incorporate other countries who retrospectively, may become an "axis of evil." Promote discord and tension amongst the Arab nations by openly support Israel blatant massacres and fuel the fire that has been raging for the last 50 years.
What's this known as?
US Foreign Policy.
So, the obvious way to stop Iraq producing WOMD is by invading with over 200,000 troops as well as dropping your own untested WOMD over Iraq?
Yep, that make perfect sense to me - obliterate the whole country and wipe out as many people as possible, seize the oilfields, set up a pro-democratic state that sells oil to the US cheaper than other producers; thereby undercutting the competition and gain a foothold in the Middle East in order to incorporate other countries who retrospectively, may become an "axis of evil." Promote discord and tension amongst the Arab nations by openly support Israel blatant massacres and fuel the fire that has been raging for the last 50 years.
What's this known as?
US Foreign Policy.
It isn't resistance.
The fact is that we have a situation similar to that prior to World War 2. The threat is there, but not enough believe in it until it's too damn late. Too many people are defining the threat in the old ways of the Cold War. You will not see Iraqi tanks bounding into Europe, nor will you see - for some time at least - missiles flying over the horizon towards other nations. Doesn't mean the threat isn't there and growing. Iraq is piling lie upon lies, supposed oversights, lost documents. In short they have something to hide. Question is whether they admit to it or we have to go find what it is, I'm guessing the latter.
Mixed with this inability to act, is self interest, on both sides. France is scared $hitless that when we get into Iraq we're going to find weapons and other items which France has sold them. Russia still deals with Iraq also, as does Germany. Any war means the end of those little bits of business.
Yes, America and everyone else is well aware of the oil fields, but lets face it, even if they were occupied then noone could make a worse job of it than Iraq already is. Given it's resources it should not be in the state it is, but seeing as Saddam funnels what little wealth there is into the army and himself you will not see a reverse of that situation.
So, not resistance, but appeasement. More time is not the solution because Saddam knows full well that there is no unity in the UN, and that he can string them along for the rest of his life, and then it will be too late. For a variety of reasons, the Iraq situation is coming to a climax, it gets dealt with now, or we forget about it and leave it to another generation to deal with.
Your points about Saddam when we dealt with him are, as usual, selective. He killed the Kurds, after our dealings with him, he became anti western AFTER our dealings with him, he invaded Kuwait AFTER our dealings with him, he tried to accquire Nuclear material AFTER our dealings with him, he has developed and made, and hidden WMDs AFTER our dealings with him. But hey, we once sold him some stuff which we then destroyed totally in 1991, so that makes it okay with you....
The fact is that we have a situation similar to that prior to World War 2. The threat is there, but not enough believe in it until it's too damn late. Too many people are defining the threat in the old ways of the Cold War. You will not see Iraqi tanks bounding into Europe, nor will you see - for some time at least - missiles flying over the horizon towards other nations. Doesn't mean the threat isn't there and growing. Iraq is piling lie upon lies, supposed oversights, lost documents. In short they have something to hide. Question is whether they admit to it or we have to go find what it is, I'm guessing the latter.
Mixed with this inability to act, is self interest, on both sides. France is scared $hitless that when we get into Iraq we're going to find weapons and other items which France has sold them. Russia still deals with Iraq also, as does Germany. Any war means the end of those little bits of business.
Yes, America and everyone else is well aware of the oil fields, but lets face it, even if they were occupied then noone could make a worse job of it than Iraq already is. Given it's resources it should not be in the state it is, but seeing as Saddam funnels what little wealth there is into the army and himself you will not see a reverse of that situation.
So, not resistance, but appeasement. More time is not the solution because Saddam knows full well that there is no unity in the UN, and that he can string them along for the rest of his life, and then it will be too late. For a variety of reasons, the Iraq situation is coming to a climax, it gets dealt with now, or we forget about it and leave it to another generation to deal with.
Your points about Saddam when we dealt with him are, as usual, selective. He killed the Kurds, after our dealings with him, he became anti western AFTER our dealings with him, he invaded Kuwait AFTER our dealings with him, he tried to accquire Nuclear material AFTER our dealings with him, he has developed and made, and hidden WMDs AFTER our dealings with him. But hey, we once sold him some stuff which we then destroyed totally in 1991, so that makes it okay with you....
Incidentally Bell; do you remember when you said that any idea that meets with resistance is a bad one? Well, how does that mesh with the HUGE resistance that the idea of a war against Iraq without UN backing?
Page: