The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
With the Anti-War and Pro-War campaigns well under way there are some points that need to be cleared up and/or resolved. The first of these, is to do with Tony Benn the Ex-Labour MP who protested that there should be no Gulf War back in 1991. He went to Baghdad for a private meeting with Saddam Hussien which was then broadcast throughout the world. The problem with this interview is that Tony Benn aided Saddam Hussien with his propaganda in that the west were going to attack him even though he is complying to the fullest of Iraq's ability. The questions Tony Benn asked were pointless and indirect and enabled Saddam to plea the if Iraq is attacked we will defend ourselves speech, passing all ownis of wrong doing off of himself and onto those that are going to potentially attack him. This interview also happened at a crucial time when the first resolution was beginning to waiver in favour of the Allies, and not Saddam. Tony Benn has then seemingly helped to jeopardise the position of the UN and UK opinion and instead of coming back to this country kicking and shouting that Saddam is doing nothing wrong, there should be no war etc, he himself should be brought before a court of justice and tried for jeopardising the national security of this country.
The second is that some people are suggesting that we send in the SAS to try and assassinate Saddam. Whilst this would possibly limit any potential civilian casualties, it is just not viable. Saddam has many look-a-likes which would make it difficult to pin-point, which one to take out, and another would just fill his place as a show of defiance towards those that 'tried' to kill Saddam. It is also not possible to get rid of the whole regime in Iraq by getting rid of one man no matter which angle you look at the consequences of killing Saddam and Saddam only.
If you're against war, go home tonight and look at your loved ones, your friends and family, and ask yourself "If there was an chemical attack in this country, and all of these people around me died, friends and family, would I still say there needs to be a peaceful resolution and war is not the solution"....I very much doubt it. Yet this is what the Iraq people are suffering from on a daily basis. Over 1 million Iraqi people have been killed by Saddams regime, thats 1.69% of the population here!
Saddam Hussein has had his chance to disarm since the Gulf war ended in 1991 and a resolution was passed for him to disarm then. Yet he didn't do it. Now that we are on the verge of war there has been news reports that if the UK and USA go to war against Iraq then George Bush and Tony Blair could be trialed for war crimes, as they wouldn't potentially have the UN's backing. This is not true as although the UN hasn't given its approval for war and a second resolution is currently being stalled, the fact that Iraq has not fully complied with the first resolution gives a valid reason as set out in resolution 1441 that force will be used to disarm Iraq if necessary. This would also see the end of the UN in the same way the League of Nations disappeared.
The problem Blair and Bush have is they are trying to do two jobs at once; Disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddams regime. What they need to do is focus on what they are meant to be doing which is disarm Iraq, although no one can deny that Saddam must go to make Iraq a safer place for not only its people but the security of other countries. However if we go to war, no one has had the intelligence to ask Bush or Blair if we will then do the same to Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Korea, Rwanda, Burundi and France to sort out the problems there as you can just say that Iraq is the only threat to the safety of its own people and the people of other countries, either be it by terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, or by a dictatorship. This is my only reservation against war but just remember that prevention is better than action after an event has happened.
The second is that some people are suggesting that we send in the SAS to try and assassinate Saddam. Whilst this would possibly limit any potential civilian casualties, it is just not viable. Saddam has many look-a-likes which would make it difficult to pin-point, which one to take out, and another would just fill his place as a show of defiance towards those that 'tried' to kill Saddam. It is also not possible to get rid of the whole regime in Iraq by getting rid of one man no matter which angle you look at the consequences of killing Saddam and Saddam only.
If you're against war, go home tonight and look at your loved ones, your friends and family, and ask yourself "If there was an chemical attack in this country, and all of these people around me died, friends and family, would I still say there needs to be a peaceful resolution and war is not the solution"....I very much doubt it. Yet this is what the Iraq people are suffering from on a daily basis. Over 1 million Iraqi people have been killed by Saddams regime, thats 1.69% of the population here!
Saddam Hussein has had his chance to disarm since the Gulf war ended in 1991 and a resolution was passed for him to disarm then. Yet he didn't do it. Now that we are on the verge of war there has been news reports that if the UK and USA go to war against Iraq then George Bush and Tony Blair could be trialed for war crimes, as they wouldn't potentially have the UN's backing. This is not true as although the UN hasn't given its approval for war and a second resolution is currently being stalled, the fact that Iraq has not fully complied with the first resolution gives a valid reason as set out in resolution 1441 that force will be used to disarm Iraq if necessary. This would also see the end of the UN in the same way the League of Nations disappeared.
The problem Blair and Bush have is they are trying to do two jobs at once; Disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddams regime. What they need to do is focus on what they are meant to be doing which is disarm Iraq, although no one can deny that Saddam must go to make Iraq a safer place for not only its people but the security of other countries. However if we go to war, no one has had the intelligence to ask Bush or Blair if we will then do the same to Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Korea, Rwanda, Burundi and France to sort out the problems there as you can just say that Iraq is the only threat to the safety of its own people and the people of other countries, either be it by terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, or by a dictatorship. This is my only reservation against war but just remember that prevention is better than action after an event has happened.
Why the SAS cannot assasinate Saddam Reason #1: The SAS trained his bodyguard unit in the 1980s.
:D
:D
With the Anti-War and Pro-War campaigns well under way there are some points that need to be cleared up and/or resolved. The first of these, is to do with Tony Benn the Ex-Labour MP who protested that there should be no Gulf War back in 1991. He went to Baghdad for a private meeting with Saddam Hussien which was then broadcast throughout the world. The problem with this interview is that Tony Benn aided Saddam Hussien with his propaganda in that the west were going to attack him even though he is complying to the fullest of Iraq's ability. The questions Tony Benn asked were pointless and indirect and enabled Saddam to plea the if Iraq is attacked we will defend ourselves speech, passing all ownis of wrong doing off of himself and onto those that are going to potentially attack him. This interview also happened at a crucial time when the first resolution was beginning to waiver in favour of the Allies, and not Saddam. Tony Benn has then seemingly helped to jeopardise the position of the UN and UK opinion and instead of coming back to this country kicking and shouting that Saddam is doing nothing wrong, there should be no war etc, he himself should be brought before a court of justice and tried for jeopardising the national security of this country.
The second is that some people are suggesting that we send in the SAS to try and assassinate Saddam. Whilst this would possibly limit any potential civilian casualties, it is just not viable. Saddam has many look-a-likes which would make it difficult to pin-point, which one to take out, and another would just fill his place as a show of defiance towards those that 'tried' to kill Saddam. It is also not possible to get rid of the whole regime in Iraq by getting rid of one man no matter which angle you look at the consequences of killing Saddam and Saddam only.
If you're against war, go home tonight and look at your loved ones, your friends and family, and ask yourself "If there was an chemical attack in this country, and all of these people around me died, friends and family, would I still say there needs to be a peaceful resolution and war is not the solution"....I very much doubt it. Yet this is what the Iraq people are suffering from on a daily basis. Over 1 million Iraqi people have been killed by Saddams regime, thats 1.69% of the population here!
Saddam Hussein has had his chance to disarm since the Gulf war ended in 1991 and a resolution was passed for him to disarm then. Yet he didn't do it. Now that we are on the verge of war there has been news reports that if the UK and USA go to war against Iraq then George Bush and Tony Blair could be trialed for war crimes, as they wouldn't potentially have the UN's backing. This is not true as although the UN hasn't given its approval for war and a second resolution is currently being stalled, the fact that Iraq has not fully complied with the first resolution gives a valid reason as set out in resolution 1441 that force will be used to disarm Iraq if necessary. This would also see the end of the UN in the same way the League of Nations disappeared.
The problem Blair and Bush have is they are trying to do two jobs at once; Disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddams regime. What they need to do is focus on what they are meant to be doing which is disarm Iraq, although no one can deny that Saddam must go to make Iraq a safer place for not only its people but the security of other countries. However if we go to war, no one has had the intelligence to ask Bush or Blair if we will then do the same to Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Korea, Rwanda, Burundi and France to sort out the problems there as you can just say that Iraq is the only threat to the safety of its own people and the people of other countries, either be it by terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, or by a dictatorship. This is my only reservation against war but just remember that prevention is better than action after an event has happened.
The second is that some people are suggesting that we send in the SAS to try and assassinate Saddam. Whilst this would possibly limit any potential civilian casualties, it is just not viable. Saddam has many look-a-likes which would make it difficult to pin-point, which one to take out, and another would just fill his place as a show of defiance towards those that 'tried' to kill Saddam. It is also not possible to get rid of the whole regime in Iraq by getting rid of one man no matter which angle you look at the consequences of killing Saddam and Saddam only.
If you're against war, go home tonight and look at your loved ones, your friends and family, and ask yourself "If there was an chemical attack in this country, and all of these people around me died, friends and family, would I still say there needs to be a peaceful resolution and war is not the solution"....I very much doubt it. Yet this is what the Iraq people are suffering from on a daily basis. Over 1 million Iraqi people have been killed by Saddams regime, thats 1.69% of the population here!
Saddam Hussein has had his chance to disarm since the Gulf war ended in 1991 and a resolution was passed for him to disarm then. Yet he didn't do it. Now that we are on the verge of war there has been news reports that if the UK and USA go to war against Iraq then George Bush and Tony Blair could be trialed for war crimes, as they wouldn't potentially have the UN's backing. This is not true as although the UN hasn't given its approval for war and a second resolution is currently being stalled, the fact that Iraq has not fully complied with the first resolution gives a valid reason as set out in resolution 1441 that force will be used to disarm Iraq if necessary. This would also see the end of the UN in the same way the League of Nations disappeared.
The problem Blair and Bush have is they are trying to do two jobs at once; Disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddams regime. What they need to do is focus on what they are meant to be doing which is disarm Iraq, although no one can deny that Saddam must go to make Iraq a safer place for not only its people but the security of other countries. However if we go to war, no one has had the intelligence to ask Bush or Blair if we will then do the same to Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Korea, Rwanda, Burundi and France to sort out the problems there as you can just say that Iraq is the only threat to the safety of its own people and the people of other countries, either be it by terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, or by a dictatorship. This is my only reservation against war but just remember that prevention is better than action after an event has happened.