The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Star Fury wrote:
The only consistency your argument has is
> that we should never do anything at all because if we look carefully
> at one point the nations involved will have done something that
> relates to what they want to do in the present.
No, I'm afraid you've done a super job of misrepresenting what I say. As I've made clear from the beginning, action should be taken against wrongdoing. But it shouldn't be such that it will lead to more global instability and more terrorism.
>
> Iraq will become a threat in the future, and it is now. How many times
> do they have to lie to convince you ? There's just so many times
> they've misled everyone; shells, drones, missiles, agents, scientists
> and so on. An endelss processions. But, no. America and the West sold
> them stuff in the 80's so all is fine with you. Israel has weapons, so
> all is fine.
Will it? And North Korea? Will they become a threat in the future because of their sheels, drones, missiles, agents, scientists and so on? So...we should recall the bits of the past that justify what is about to happen, but ignore whatever does not?
Your attempt at sarcasm; yes, the US and the west did sell them weapons. Hence I loathe the high-minded rhetoric about the "evil dictator" who was far less evil when he was our customer. You've chosen to believe it, and that's your prerogative, but doesn't the immense hypocrisy displayed by the West in this maybe make you think that perhaps the reasons we're being given for going to war are, well, total and utter b******t?
>
> Israel is a threat to nobody,
Apart from it's own Palestinian and Arab citizens of course. Is murdering your own people fine?
I would point out that under your criteria, Iraq is a threat to no-one either. Certainly not to world peace. What threat DO they actually pose? You've a lot to say about why none of the other countries who are currently in the news are a threat; yet you've said nothing about why Iraq is other than "Iraq is a threat".
> You've said in the past that Iraq was a way of diverting attention
> from a failed war on terrorism. Judging by recent arrests and
> operations I'd say that notion was blown away. The war continues, and
> we are winning it.
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?
The only consistency your argument has is
> that we should never do anything at all because if we look carefully
> at one point the nations involved will have done something that
> relates to what they want to do in the present.
No, I'm afraid you've done a super job of misrepresenting what I say. As I've made clear from the beginning, action should be taken against wrongdoing. But it shouldn't be such that it will lead to more global instability and more terrorism.
>
> Iraq will become a threat in the future, and it is now. How many times
> do they have to lie to convince you ? There's just so many times
> they've misled everyone; shells, drones, missiles, agents, scientists
> and so on. An endelss processions. But, no. America and the West sold
> them stuff in the 80's so all is fine with you. Israel has weapons, so
> all is fine.
Will it? And North Korea? Will they become a threat in the future because of their sheels, drones, missiles, agents, scientists and so on? So...we should recall the bits of the past that justify what is about to happen, but ignore whatever does not?
Your attempt at sarcasm; yes, the US and the west did sell them weapons. Hence I loathe the high-minded rhetoric about the "evil dictator" who was far less evil when he was our customer. You've chosen to believe it, and that's your prerogative, but doesn't the immense hypocrisy displayed by the West in this maybe make you think that perhaps the reasons we're being given for going to war are, well, total and utter b******t?
>
> Israel is a threat to nobody,
Apart from it's own Palestinian and Arab citizens of course. Is murdering your own people fine?
I would point out that under your criteria, Iraq is a threat to no-one either. Certainly not to world peace. What threat DO they actually pose? You've a lot to say about why none of the other countries who are currently in the news are a threat; yet you've said nothing about why Iraq is other than "Iraq is a threat".
> You've said in the past that Iraq was a way of diverting attention
> from a failed war on terrorism. Judging by recent arrests and
> operations I'd say that notion was blown away. The war continues, and
> we are winning it.
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?
BEARDS. wrote:
> Suicide bombing makes no sense to me. You do it, you have one less
> terrorist buddy to use. It's an inefficient use of manpower resources.
the grim reality is they have hundreds of thousands of followers all willing to die for their beliefs while causing chaos and death to other people. These bombers arn't big players but pawns in a much bigger game of terrorism, the key players like Osama bin laden contribute a lot of funds into their schemes which can include military training programs in firearms, bomb development and the handleing bio agents.
> Suicide bombing makes no sense to me. You do it, you have one less
> terrorist buddy to use. It's an inefficient use of manpower resources.
the grim reality is they have hundreds of thousands of followers all willing to die for their beliefs while causing chaos and death to other people. These bombers arn't big players but pawns in a much bigger game of terrorism, the key players like Osama bin laden contribute a lot of funds into their schemes which can include military training programs in firearms, bomb development and the handleing bio agents.
Light wrote:
> If we can't change the past and if we shouldn't concern ourselves with
> it, then why are we building up for war with Iraq? Any idea that they
> are a future threat to world peace is no more or less valid an idea
> that Israel, or North Korea, or Saudi, or Poland, or Uzbekistan, or
> Gambia, or Micronesia, or the USA is a future threat to world peace.
>
> You don't mean ignore the past though, do you? You mean that we should
> ignore those bits of history that blow the current arguments for war
> clean out of the water. I'm not being antagonistic here, its just that
> your argument has no logical consistency.
>
> If this were the start of a sweeping removal of world dictators then I
> would rejoice. Does anyone think it is?
Given the chance it could be the start of removing world dictators. But it won't be. Because it's the job of the UN to do that. Unfortunately the UN is rather lacking in unity, and hence is useless.
I think you are going at this with an idealistic zeal that matches my former rantings. Nobody is perfect, if you want the world to mess around with every slight there has been then fine, we'll stagnate for the next thousand years. The only consistency your argument has is that we should never do anything at all because if we look carefully at one point the nations involved will have done something that relates to what they want to do in the present.
Iraq will become a threat in the future, and it is now. How many times do they have to lie to convince you ? There's just so many times they've misled everyone; shells, drones, missiles, agents, scientists and so on. An endelss processions. But, no. America and the West sold them stuff in the 80's so all is fine with you. Israel has weapons, so all is fine.
Israel is a threat to nobody, unless someone decides to attack Israel in which case they deserve everything they get in return. If we can sort Iraq and the problems it has then it makes the chance of a Middle East peace deal more likely, and it means more attention can switch to N.Korea.
You've said in the past that Iraq was a way of diverting attention from a failed war on terrorism. Judging by recent arrests and operations I'd say that notion was blown away. The war continues, and we are winning it.
> If we can't change the past and if we shouldn't concern ourselves with
> it, then why are we building up for war with Iraq? Any idea that they
> are a future threat to world peace is no more or less valid an idea
> that Israel, or North Korea, or Saudi, or Poland, or Uzbekistan, or
> Gambia, or Micronesia, or the USA is a future threat to world peace.
>
> You don't mean ignore the past though, do you? You mean that we should
> ignore those bits of history that blow the current arguments for war
> clean out of the water. I'm not being antagonistic here, its just that
> your argument has no logical consistency.
>
> If this were the start of a sweeping removal of world dictators then I
> would rejoice. Does anyone think it is?
Given the chance it could be the start of removing world dictators. But it won't be. Because it's the job of the UN to do that. Unfortunately the UN is rather lacking in unity, and hence is useless.
I think you are going at this with an idealistic zeal that matches my former rantings. Nobody is perfect, if you want the world to mess around with every slight there has been then fine, we'll stagnate for the next thousand years. The only consistency your argument has is that we should never do anything at all because if we look carefully at one point the nations involved will have done something that relates to what they want to do in the present.
Iraq will become a threat in the future, and it is now. How many times do they have to lie to convince you ? There's just so many times they've misled everyone; shells, drones, missiles, agents, scientists and so on. An endelss processions. But, no. America and the West sold them stuff in the 80's so all is fine with you. Israel has weapons, so all is fine.
Israel is a threat to nobody, unless someone decides to attack Israel in which case they deserve everything they get in return. If we can sort Iraq and the problems it has then it makes the chance of a Middle East peace deal more likely, and it means more attention can switch to N.Korea.
You've said in the past that Iraq was a way of diverting attention from a failed war on terrorism. Judging by recent arrests and operations I'd say that notion was blown away. The war continues, and we are winning it.
If we can't change the past and if we shouldn't concern ourselves with it, then why are we building up for war with Iraq? Any idea that they are a future threat to world peace is no more or less valid an idea that Israel, or North Korea, or Saudi, or Poland, or Uzbekistan, or Gambia, or Micronesia, or the USA is a future threat to world peace.
You don't mean ignore the past though, do you? You mean that we should ignore those bits of history that blow the current arguments for war clean out of the water. I'm not being antagonistic here, its just that your argument has no logical consistency.
If this were the start of a sweeping removal of world dictators then I would rejoice. Does anyone think it is?
You don't mean ignore the past though, do you? You mean that we should ignore those bits of history that blow the current arguments for war clean out of the water. I'm not being antagonistic here, its just that your argument has no logical consistency.
If this were the start of a sweeping removal of world dictators then I would rejoice. Does anyone think it is?
Goatboy wrote:
> Agreed.
> But that also has to include the UK for supplying nerve toxing to Iraq
> in the late 80s courtesy of Pains Wessex, America for Cheny and
> Rumsfeld's previous dealings with the Bin Laden family, Iran,
> Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor.
We can't change the past, we can effect the future. Sure, we can go back and sort out every perceived wrong doing, but it changes nothing. If we draw the line now, and go after existing supplies in the hands of those who cannot be trusted with them, then that's a start and it begins to make up for what the west has done in the past. Only begins, but you have to make a start somewhere...
> Agreed.
> But that also has to include the UK for supplying nerve toxing to Iraq
> in the late 80s courtesy of Pains Wessex, America for Cheny and
> Rumsfeld's previous dealings with the Bin Laden family, Iran,
> Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor.
We can't change the past, we can effect the future. Sure, we can go back and sort out every perceived wrong doing, but it changes nothing. If we draw the line now, and go after existing supplies in the hands of those who cannot be trusted with them, then that's a start and it begins to make up for what the west has done in the past. Only begins, but you have to make a start somewhere...
Star Fury wrote:
> That's why, if there is a remotest chance that anyone will give
> terrorists access to such material they have to be dealt with.
---
Agreed.
But that also has to include the UK for supplying nerve toxing to Iraq in the late 80s courtesy of Pains Wessex, America for Cheny and Rumsfeld's previous dealings with the Bin Laden family, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor.
> That's why, if there is a remotest chance that anyone will give
> terrorists access to such material they have to be dealt with.
---
Agreed.
But that also has to include the UK for supplying nerve toxing to Iraq in the late 80s courtesy of Pains Wessex, America for Cheny and Rumsfeld's previous dealings with the Bin Laden family, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and East Timoor.
Despite the fac the meant it as a joke, Unbeliever pretty much ahs the right idea about how easy it would be to do a bio attack once the agent is inside the country. Take five guys, give them a modified aerosol can, put each on a train, or coach, or go into the centre of somewhere like Meadowhall. Put the aerosol down, press the button, walk away. Depending on what is used, three days to a week later you have thousands of cases of disease popping up all over the country, and spreading fast.
That's why, if there is a remotest chance that anyone will give terrorists access to such material they have to be dealt with.
That's why, if there is a remotest chance that anyone will give terrorists access to such material they have to be dealt with.
They are difficult to get hold of though. Not if you know the right people I suppose. Then again, you could have me on a packed tube train after a night of eating curry. The resulting fart could be classed as a WOMD...
:p
:p
But one suicide bomber can kill a hundred "infidels"
I'd bet that whatever it is will be something more devestating, but less visible immediately. I'm not saying this because of how the media is in a small stir about bio agents, but it stands to reason they're rather blo0dy good for a terrorist to use, and stupidly easy to deploy. Once the bio agent is in the country it's game over time.
Page: