The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The big three - Bush, Blair and Saddam.
Don't they realise that this war could, effectively, destroy parts of our planet?
Since Bush's 'war against terrorism', war always seemed to be around the next corner, but how did he come to the conclusion that a war against Iraq would solve problems? Saddam has had weapons for years and has been torturing his own people way before now, so what's the point in going to war now, if they wanted to go to war, going earlier would surely mean that they wouldn't be able get as far with technical advancements.
In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the chance.
But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of disasters with war.
It surpasses me how they don't seem to see the consiquences.
Rant over.
Don't they realise that this war could, effectively, destroy parts of our planet?
Since Bush's 'war against terrorism', war always seemed to be around the next corner, but how did he come to the conclusion that a war against Iraq would solve problems? Saddam has had weapons for years and has been torturing his own people way before now, so what's the point in going to war now, if they wanted to go to war, going earlier would surely mean that they wouldn't be able get as far with technical advancements.
In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the chance.
But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of disasters with war.
It surpasses me how they don't seem to see the consiquences.
Rant over.
But if America are waging war on Iraq because of Saddams 'weapons of mass destruction', why not wage war on North-Korea too? I'm not saying they should, but surely if the war was really started because of the weapons that Saddam has, North-Korea should be fought against, too.
Maybe we're all missing the point. Bush might have just wanted to invade a country that rhymed with Chirac...
Maybe we're all missing the point. Bush might have just wanted to invade a country that rhymed with Chirac...
½pint wrote:
> Americans have always had anti-Saddam views. He's not a scapegoat,
> they just don't like them. When I lived in America in 1998, there
> were plenty of people who, even then, when Saddam wasn't really in
> current affairs, would talk about how he was scum of the earth etc.
I didn't say they didn't hate Saddam before September the eleventh. They hated him in the wars in the gulf, they hated him after, but when the UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq they didn't care enough to do anything about it. They were safe in the land of the free. Now they don't feel so safe, and they need someone to defeat Saddam seems to be the prime target, whether he is partially responsible for 9/11 or not, through providing funding, through providing sanctuary or inspiration. I still haven't seen any link between Iraq and the attack on the world trade centre, but that no longer seems to be an issue.
> Americans have always had anti-Saddam views. He's not a scapegoat,
> they just don't like them. When I lived in America in 1998, there
> were plenty of people who, even then, when Saddam wasn't really in
> current affairs, would talk about how he was scum of the earth etc.
I didn't say they didn't hate Saddam before September the eleventh. They hated him in the wars in the gulf, they hated him after, but when the UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq they didn't care enough to do anything about it. They were safe in the land of the free. Now they don't feel so safe, and they need someone to defeat Saddam seems to be the prime target, whether he is partially responsible for 9/11 or not, through providing funding, through providing sanctuary or inspiration. I still haven't seen any link between Iraq and the attack on the world trade centre, but that no longer seems to be an issue.
Americans have always had anti-Saddam views. He's not a scapegoat, they just don't like them. When I lived in America in 1998, there were plenty of people who, even then, when Saddam wasn't really in current affairs, would talk about how he was scum of the earth etc.
Rickoss wrote:
>
> In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for
> 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on
> Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a
> war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
>
I agree with this point. After September the Eleventh Bush had to act, and he started a war against terror. This was a war that he could never, ever win. Unfortunately while there is still so much contempt (especially towards the West) you will never rid the world of terror, and even if you did you would have no evidence. What he needed was Bin Laden's head on a spike, but even that wasn't going to be the end of it. He needed some sort of closure, so he focussed on Iraq.
>
> More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have
> thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have
> active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is
> dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
>
I haven't heard of any super prolific North Korean Terrorists, or of North Korea's support of terrorism. Granted that their massing arsenal of weapons should not be tolerated, but it doesn't make them a target in the war against terrorists. That's why you'd never win a war against terrorism, because, in effect, you have no one to wage war against. Those you do you have no idea where they are.
>
> As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge
> anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds
> face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his
> mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting
> our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in
> letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
>
Now I know people should have a say, but there are things that we just don't know, and are probably better of knowing. We have elected these people to deal with this sort of thing for us. It's all very well having marches. Everyone knows that war is a terrible thing, but I think some people have had that so ingrained that they think we must avoid war at all costs. I don't believe that is the case. I also don't believe that the general public is privvy to enough information to be able to make that choice.
>
> It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the
> chance.
>
> But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has
> weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke
> Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons
> stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the
> world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke
> Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of
> disasters with war.
>
This war should've happened 12 years ago, when the weapons inspectors were first thrown out of Iraq, but America wasn't onside then. They were alone in their own world. Surrounded by oceans and pretty much untouchable. That's what they thought, but now they know different. Sure America has weapons of mass destruction, but I doubt that the war will end by leaving massive scars anywhere except the Iraqi desert, and bagdad etc. I'm not saying that is right, but the only real threat we face from the war is the threat of terrorism, which we face every day. Sure, it may be more likely if we are at war, but there are always risks in war, and risks if we do not act, or if we wait.
Rant over.
>
> In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for
> 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on
> Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a
> war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
>
I agree with this point. After September the Eleventh Bush had to act, and he started a war against terror. This was a war that he could never, ever win. Unfortunately while there is still so much contempt (especially towards the West) you will never rid the world of terror, and even if you did you would have no evidence. What he needed was Bin Laden's head on a spike, but even that wasn't going to be the end of it. He needed some sort of closure, so he focussed on Iraq.
>
> More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have
> thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have
> active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is
> dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
>
I haven't heard of any super prolific North Korean Terrorists, or of North Korea's support of terrorism. Granted that their massing arsenal of weapons should not be tolerated, but it doesn't make them a target in the war against terrorists. That's why you'd never win a war against terrorism, because, in effect, you have no one to wage war against. Those you do you have no idea where they are.
>
> As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge
> anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds
> face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his
> mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting
> our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in
> letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
>
Now I know people should have a say, but there are things that we just don't know, and are probably better of knowing. We have elected these people to deal with this sort of thing for us. It's all very well having marches. Everyone knows that war is a terrible thing, but I think some people have had that so ingrained that they think we must avoid war at all costs. I don't believe that is the case. I also don't believe that the general public is privvy to enough information to be able to make that choice.
>
> It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the
> chance.
>
> But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has
> weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke
> Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons
> stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the
> world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke
> Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of
> disasters with war.
>
This war should've happened 12 years ago, when the weapons inspectors were first thrown out of Iraq, but America wasn't onside then. They were alone in their own world. Surrounded by oceans and pretty much untouchable. That's what they thought, but now they know different. Sure America has weapons of mass destruction, but I doubt that the war will end by leaving massive scars anywhere except the Iraqi desert, and bagdad etc. I'm not saying that is right, but the only real threat we face from the war is the threat of terrorism, which we face every day. Sure, it may be more likely if we are at war, but there are always risks in war, and risks if we do not act, or if we wait.
Rant over.
What do you mean 'even' Russia
Russia have like the most nukes in the world... they're all old and falling apart mind you
Russia have like the most nukes in the world... they're all old and falling apart mind you
For chrisakes, even RUSSIA have weapons of mass destruction.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Normal people talked to Tony Blair?
>
> Who else did? :0)
The absent-minded war people :-D
> Normal people talked to Tony Blair?
>
> Who else did? :0)
The absent-minded war people :-D
If someone wanted to attack USA they should just chuck a Nuke down the active Volcano on Palma/Parma sp? island in the Canaries. This would cause a fault to increase in size and the whole side of the Volcano to plunge into the Atlantic. Three trillion tonnes of rock would create a Mega Tsunami thats initially 650m high getting higher when the sea shallows. Thus in 8 hours the whole of the East Coast of the USA will be destroyed up to a level of at least 20km in land.
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
Normal people talked to Tony Blair?
Who else did? :0)
Who else did? :0)
The big three - Bush, Blair and Saddam.
Don't they realise that this war could, effectively, destroy parts of our planet?
Since Bush's 'war against terrorism', war always seemed to be around the next corner, but how did he come to the conclusion that a war against Iraq would solve problems? Saddam has had weapons for years and has been torturing his own people way before now, so what's the point in going to war now, if they wanted to go to war, going earlier would surely mean that they wouldn't be able get as far with technical advancements.
In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the chance.
But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of disasters with war.
It surpasses me how they don't seem to see the consiquences.
Rant over.
Don't they realise that this war could, effectively, destroy parts of our planet?
Since Bush's 'war against terrorism', war always seemed to be around the next corner, but how did he come to the conclusion that a war against Iraq would solve problems? Saddam has had weapons for years and has been torturing his own people way before now, so what's the point in going to war now, if they wanted to go to war, going earlier would surely mean that they wouldn't be able get as far with technical advancements.
In my eyes, Bush is just going to war in order to get revenge for 9/11; he's tried to find Osama Bin Laden and has failed, so a war on Iraq will make people forget about Bin Laden. If he really wanted a war on terror, why not keep looking for Bin Laden?
More importantly, if he was to target any country, I would have thought North-Korea if this really was a war against terror. They have active weapons and aren't being discrete about it. While Saddam is dangerous, at this time there doesn't seem to be much threat.
As for Tony Blair, I can't believe anyone can be so arragont. The huge anti-war marches and even normal people that spoke their minds face-to-face with Blair were just ignored. Even though he's spoken his mind and said that he believes war on Iraq is the answer, he's putting our country in danger and it shouldn't be up to, what's the point in letting people talk to him - people had already made up their minds.
It's almost as if he's just trying to do something while he has the chance.
But what annoys me more is that, if they're so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, they're prepared to go to war and provoke Saddam into using them, I'm sure America will have secret weapons stashed away somewhere. This could end up destroying huge parts of the world, why the hell don't these people realise; war will provoke Saddam into using these weapons and there's much more chance of disasters with war.
It surpasses me how they don't seem to see the consiquences.
Rant over.