The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is basicy my entire mindset on the Iraq situation. Its confused, contradictory, and probably will be considered 'stupid' by half of you, but I keep on yelling at thet TV, so I'm now taking it out here.....
Right. First things first. I'm going to be organised:
Bush and Blair: First of all, they would be doing sod all if 9/11 had never happened, so their supposed 'decency' of protecting our future is simply because terrorism actualy caused some serious explosions, and everybody sat up and took notice. Fact is, people were dying way before, because these idiots were bombing and killing. I imagine half the senior US military commanders, while of course grieving (it was a tragedy) were then immedialty planning on what to do with the oodles of cash they got......so they invaded Afghanisthan. Now Iraq. And the reasons? Er...'weapons of mass desturction', then Saddam Hussein, then the supposed links to Al Queda. Etc etc etc. The leaders have stood up for what they believe in, but then again, ignored what their people do (but only the ones they wanted to, if that makes any sense). Iraq flaunts the UN? Well what in gods name have the UK and US just done?
US Admin: Above + Double standards. Rumsfeld selling anthrax years ago to Iraq. Great. The 12 years when he has been in power, just as evil, just as capable of commiting human atrocities etc. Oh, and bribing nations to help them. Some of them with terrible human rights records....'oh, Saddam kills his own people, we must stop him'. If you do it to one killer, and you leave another, what the hell was the point of the exercise? And what the hell about North Korea? Or maybe they have too many WMDs to be safely fought.....Israels undeclared weaponry (also in the 'boiling pot of the Middle East)? And terrorism? Is the IRA not a terrorist organistation? Where is the *concrete* evidence of links?
Oil: I was very happy to hear that the trustfund for the UN rebuilding of Iraq is to be funded by the oil. Great. Less happy to hear that Cheneys company is getting the contract to rebuild the oil infrastructure. Hmmm....still, the trustfund is good news.
France/Against: Sure, the French stood up for what they believe in. Personaly, I'd liked to of seen more inspections, but the truth is, the US and UK would of then brought the human rights card into play (and of course ignored other terrible dictators)........The French (I think) funded Iraqi arms and has shares in the oil. Thats enough to really annoy me. A lot. However, the overeaction to France is ridiculous. Freedom Fries? Destroy the Statue Of Liberty while you are at it then chaps..........Anti-war protestors. Great, they are making themselves heard. But the ones who say that the troops, if they disagree, should not fight, I say sod off. If the troops don't fight, the others will be put in jeopardhy. Etc. I believe that Saddam should be got rid of, and Iraq put under an Iraqi elected government, with Kurds allowed to have same rights and everything. Unfortunatly, war seems to be the only option for doing so. Therefore, the UK and US seem to be 'saving Iraq'. I'm angry at them for choosing which reasons to play and when. First WMDs, then human rights, then terrorism.......it just makes them look like they are totaly insincere and just want a good scrap.
Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing. Like a sport - 'There goes the tracer fire' Etc. Stop it. We want to know what happens, just not at the expense of our concern for those events. Saturation media is going to kill our intrest, I'm sad to say.
Anyway. I'm sure I'm wrong on many points, but to me, those are my main feelings. Written in a ramble. Anyway. Good luck to 'the boys', and most of all good luck to the Iraqi people. War is horrific.
Right. First things first. I'm going to be organised:
Bush and Blair: First of all, they would be doing sod all if 9/11 had never happened, so their supposed 'decency' of protecting our future is simply because terrorism actualy caused some serious explosions, and everybody sat up and took notice. Fact is, people were dying way before, because these idiots were bombing and killing. I imagine half the senior US military commanders, while of course grieving (it was a tragedy) were then immedialty planning on what to do with the oodles of cash they got......so they invaded Afghanisthan. Now Iraq. And the reasons? Er...'weapons of mass desturction', then Saddam Hussein, then the supposed links to Al Queda. Etc etc etc. The leaders have stood up for what they believe in, but then again, ignored what their people do (but only the ones they wanted to, if that makes any sense). Iraq flaunts the UN? Well what in gods name have the UK and US just done?
US Admin: Above + Double standards. Rumsfeld selling anthrax years ago to Iraq. Great. The 12 years when he has been in power, just as evil, just as capable of commiting human atrocities etc. Oh, and bribing nations to help them. Some of them with terrible human rights records....'oh, Saddam kills his own people, we must stop him'. If you do it to one killer, and you leave another, what the hell was the point of the exercise? And what the hell about North Korea? Or maybe they have too many WMDs to be safely fought.....Israels undeclared weaponry (also in the 'boiling pot of the Middle East)? And terrorism? Is the IRA not a terrorist organistation? Where is the *concrete* evidence of links?
Oil: I was very happy to hear that the trustfund for the UN rebuilding of Iraq is to be funded by the oil. Great. Less happy to hear that Cheneys company is getting the contract to rebuild the oil infrastructure. Hmmm....still, the trustfund is good news.
France/Against: Sure, the French stood up for what they believe in. Personaly, I'd liked to of seen more inspections, but the truth is, the US and UK would of then brought the human rights card into play (and of course ignored other terrible dictators)........The French (I think) funded Iraqi arms and has shares in the oil. Thats enough to really annoy me. A lot. However, the overeaction to France is ridiculous. Freedom Fries? Destroy the Statue Of Liberty while you are at it then chaps..........Anti-war protestors. Great, they are making themselves heard. But the ones who say that the troops, if they disagree, should not fight, I say sod off. If the troops don't fight, the others will be put in jeopardhy. Etc. I believe that Saddam should be got rid of, and Iraq put under an Iraqi elected government, with Kurds allowed to have same rights and everything. Unfortunatly, war seems to be the only option for doing so. Therefore, the UK and US seem to be 'saving Iraq'. I'm angry at them for choosing which reasons to play and when. First WMDs, then human rights, then terrorism.......it just makes them look like they are totaly insincere and just want a good scrap.
Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing. Like a sport - 'There goes the tracer fire' Etc. Stop it. We want to know what happens, just not at the expense of our concern for those events. Saturation media is going to kill our intrest, I'm sad to say.
Anyway. I'm sure I'm wrong on many points, but to me, those are my main feelings. Written in a ramble. Anyway. Good luck to 'the boys', and most of all good luck to the Iraqi people. War is horrific.
Cyclone wrote:
> Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier
> on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing.
I've just been watching that on Sky News Active. Maybe I should wake up and smell reality. Sitting there thinking, CHRIST!!! War sounds like 'that'? Massive massive bangs. Horrible. Like you say, war 'is' horrific.
Also, I just read something about Saddam being injured because of a missile. Good good.
> Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier
> on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing.
I've just been watching that on Sky News Active. Maybe I should wake up and smell reality. Sitting there thinking, CHRIST!!! War sounds like 'that'? Massive massive bangs. Horrible. Like you say, war 'is' horrific.
Also, I just read something about Saddam being injured because of a missile. Good good.
This is basicy my entire mindset on the Iraq situation. Its confused, contradictory, and probably will be considered 'stupid' by half of you, but I keep on yelling at thet TV, so I'm now taking it out here.....
Right. First things first. I'm going to be organised:
Bush and Blair: First of all, they would be doing sod all if 9/11 had never happened, so their supposed 'decency' of protecting our future is simply because terrorism actualy caused some serious explosions, and everybody sat up and took notice. Fact is, people were dying way before, because these idiots were bombing and killing. I imagine half the senior US military commanders, while of course grieving (it was a tragedy) were then immedialty planning on what to do with the oodles of cash they got......so they invaded Afghanisthan. Now Iraq. And the reasons? Er...'weapons of mass desturction', then Saddam Hussein, then the supposed links to Al Queda. Etc etc etc. The leaders have stood up for what they believe in, but then again, ignored what their people do (but only the ones they wanted to, if that makes any sense). Iraq flaunts the UN? Well what in gods name have the UK and US just done?
US Admin: Above + Double standards. Rumsfeld selling anthrax years ago to Iraq. Great. The 12 years when he has been in power, just as evil, just as capable of commiting human atrocities etc. Oh, and bribing nations to help them. Some of them with terrible human rights records....'oh, Saddam kills his own people, we must stop him'. If you do it to one killer, and you leave another, what the hell was the point of the exercise? And what the hell about North Korea? Or maybe they have too many WMDs to be safely fought.....Israels undeclared weaponry (also in the 'boiling pot of the Middle East)? And terrorism? Is the IRA not a terrorist organistation? Where is the *concrete* evidence of links?
Oil: I was very happy to hear that the trustfund for the UN rebuilding of Iraq is to be funded by the oil. Great. Less happy to hear that Cheneys company is getting the contract to rebuild the oil infrastructure. Hmmm....still, the trustfund is good news.
France/Against: Sure, the French stood up for what they believe in. Personaly, I'd liked to of seen more inspections, but the truth is, the US and UK would of then brought the human rights card into play (and of course ignored other terrible dictators)........The French (I think) funded Iraqi arms and has shares in the oil. Thats enough to really annoy me. A lot. However, the overeaction to France is ridiculous. Freedom Fries? Destroy the Statue Of Liberty while you are at it then chaps..........Anti-war protestors. Great, they are making themselves heard. But the ones who say that the troops, if they disagree, should not fight, I say sod off. If the troops don't fight, the others will be put in jeopardhy. Etc. I believe that Saddam should be got rid of, and Iraq put under an Iraqi elected government, with Kurds allowed to have same rights and everything. Unfortunatly, war seems to be the only option for doing so. Therefore, the UK and US seem to be 'saving Iraq'. I'm angry at them for choosing which reasons to play and when. First WMDs, then human rights, then terrorism.......it just makes them look like they are totaly insincere and just want a good scrap.
Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing. Like a sport - 'There goes the tracer fire' Etc. Stop it. We want to know what happens, just not at the expense of our concern for those events. Saturation media is going to kill our intrest, I'm sad to say.
Anyway. I'm sure I'm wrong on many points, but to me, those are my main feelings. Written in a ramble. Anyway. Good luck to 'the boys', and most of all good luck to the Iraqi people. War is horrific.
Right. First things first. I'm going to be organised:
Bush and Blair: First of all, they would be doing sod all if 9/11 had never happened, so their supposed 'decency' of protecting our future is simply because terrorism actualy caused some serious explosions, and everybody sat up and took notice. Fact is, people were dying way before, because these idiots were bombing and killing. I imagine half the senior US military commanders, while of course grieving (it was a tragedy) were then immedialty planning on what to do with the oodles of cash they got......so they invaded Afghanisthan. Now Iraq. And the reasons? Er...'weapons of mass desturction', then Saddam Hussein, then the supposed links to Al Queda. Etc etc etc. The leaders have stood up for what they believe in, but then again, ignored what their people do (but only the ones they wanted to, if that makes any sense). Iraq flaunts the UN? Well what in gods name have the UK and US just done?
US Admin: Above + Double standards. Rumsfeld selling anthrax years ago to Iraq. Great. The 12 years when he has been in power, just as evil, just as capable of commiting human atrocities etc. Oh, and bribing nations to help them. Some of them with terrible human rights records....'oh, Saddam kills his own people, we must stop him'. If you do it to one killer, and you leave another, what the hell was the point of the exercise? And what the hell about North Korea? Or maybe they have too many WMDs to be safely fought.....Israels undeclared weaponry (also in the 'boiling pot of the Middle East)? And terrorism? Is the IRA not a terrorist organistation? Where is the *concrete* evidence of links?
Oil: I was very happy to hear that the trustfund for the UN rebuilding of Iraq is to be funded by the oil. Great. Less happy to hear that Cheneys company is getting the contract to rebuild the oil infrastructure. Hmmm....still, the trustfund is good news.
France/Against: Sure, the French stood up for what they believe in. Personaly, I'd liked to of seen more inspections, but the truth is, the US and UK would of then brought the human rights card into play (and of course ignored other terrible dictators)........The French (I think) funded Iraqi arms and has shares in the oil. Thats enough to really annoy me. A lot. However, the overeaction to France is ridiculous. Freedom Fries? Destroy the Statue Of Liberty while you are at it then chaps..........Anti-war protestors. Great, they are making themselves heard. But the ones who say that the troops, if they disagree, should not fight, I say sod off. If the troops don't fight, the others will be put in jeopardhy. Etc. I believe that Saddam should be got rid of, and Iraq put under an Iraqi elected government, with Kurds allowed to have same rights and everything. Unfortunatly, war seems to be the only option for doing so. Therefore, the UK and US seem to be 'saving Iraq'. I'm angry at them for choosing which reasons to play and when. First WMDs, then human rights, then terrorism.......it just makes them look like they are totaly insincere and just want a good scrap.
Media: The BBC and co are already turning this into a game. Earlier on, I watched 'live' pictures of bombing. Like a sport - 'There goes the tracer fire' Etc. Stop it. We want to know what happens, just not at the expense of our concern for those events. Saturation media is going to kill our intrest, I'm sad to say.
Anyway. I'm sure I'm wrong on many points, but to me, those are my main feelings. Written in a ramble. Anyway. Good luck to 'the boys', and most of all good luck to the Iraqi people. War is horrific.