The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So I'm sitting in my Psychology lesson yesterday, when all of a sudden my teacher says "So what do you think about this war then?", in the stupidly irrelevant way that he does.
All sorts of opinions start flying around, and this girl starts mouthing off about God knows what. I'm sure she didn't even know. One minute she's saying it's wrong the next minute she's saying "And if we don't do anything, in a few month's we'll be getting anthrax attacks". Nuff said on that one.
Then later my teacher said "SO how many people have died so far?"
Me: "Three", said in an obviously jokey manner as a bit of light hearted banter. It got a few titters.
Other girl: "It started at-"
Me: "No, I meant how many people have died so far"
Her: "...Eleven isn't it?"
She couldn't even tell that I wasn't being serious. And we wonder why the government don't listen to public opinion.
All sorts of opinions start flying around, and this girl starts mouthing off about God knows what. I'm sure she didn't even know. One minute she's saying it's wrong the next minute she's saying "And if we don't do anything, in a few month's we'll be getting anthrax attacks". Nuff said on that one.
Then later my teacher said "SO how many people have died so far?"
Me: "Three", said in an obviously jokey manner as a bit of light hearted banter. It got a few titters.
Other girl: "It started at-"
Me: "No, I meant how many people have died so far"
Her: "...Eleven isn't it?"
She couldn't even tell that I wasn't being serious. And we wonder why the government don't listen to public opinion.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> ...but you are. You're saying that my point isn't valid cannot be
> valid by your own definition. It's a double edged sword.
look, i don't want to get bogged down in this, that'd completely go against my original point.
I'm just saying that when people talk about the situation in Iraq, they often make comments that they have no way of backing up. You said "For everything they're trying to pin on Iraq..." and I'm saying you have no way of reinforcing that point.
> ...but you are. You're saying that my point isn't valid cannot be
> valid by your own definition. It's a double edged sword.
look, i don't want to get bogged down in this, that'd completely go against my original point.
I'm just saying that when people talk about the situation in Iraq, they often make comments that they have no way of backing up. You said "For everything they're trying to pin on Iraq..." and I'm saying you have no way of reinforcing that point.
I completely understand your point, but I don't need all access to in depth information to say what I'm saying. I don't need to be on the front line to know basic information.
All I'm trying to say is that all (or most) of the things Saddam and the Iraqi people are being bombed for is already being perpetrated by other countries.
Apparently, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. They strenuously deny this, and weapons inspectors haven't had too much luck finding them. North Korea, on the other hand, have openly said they are developing nuclear weapons and soon will they will have the capability to manafacture one nuclear device a week (whether this figure is completely accurate or not makes no difference). And Iraq remains the priority.
Of course, we all know that Saddam has treated his people terribly. So has Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and what do we do? Play cricket with them, and debate about whether we should shake his bloody hand. Iraq remains the priority.
And Iraq has constantly abused the Kurds for several years. But they're the only ones to do that. No, wait, Turkey did it as well. Not to mention the Armenian genocide. And our position on Turkey? We're friendly with them, so we can use their bases to be closer to Iraq.
About the only way Iraq differs is to have oil - I don't mean to sound like every other person who says it's a war over oil, but since Saddam has started to burn the oil fields it seems a lot more convincing. Saddam seems to think it's over oil - and he knows more than me I'm sure.
All I'm trying to say is that all (or most) of the things Saddam and the Iraqi people are being bombed for is already being perpetrated by other countries.
Apparently, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. They strenuously deny this, and weapons inspectors haven't had too much luck finding them. North Korea, on the other hand, have openly said they are developing nuclear weapons and soon will they will have the capability to manafacture one nuclear device a week (whether this figure is completely accurate or not makes no difference). And Iraq remains the priority.
Of course, we all know that Saddam has treated his people terribly. So has Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and what do we do? Play cricket with them, and debate about whether we should shake his bloody hand. Iraq remains the priority.
And Iraq has constantly abused the Kurds for several years. But they're the only ones to do that. No, wait, Turkey did it as well. Not to mention the Armenian genocide. And our position on Turkey? We're friendly with them, so we can use their bases to be closer to Iraq.
About the only way Iraq differs is to have oil - I don't mean to sound like every other person who says it's a war over oil, but since Saddam has started to burn the oil fields it seems a lot more convincing. Saddam seems to think it's over oil - and he knows more than me I'm sure.
It is important for people to remember that the American and British governments did nothing to condemn the Iraqi governments use of WMD's against its own people until Kuwait was invaded. Threatening their oil supply seems to be the only way of getting their attention.
Page: