The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Before "Gulf 2"
Blair "Saddam Hussein is a genuine threat to our country. He presents a terrorist-in-waiting and we have to act to remove this danger to world peace"
Bush "Hussein is part of the axxis of evil, he possesses weapons of mass destruction"
They were presenting the need for the war as a way to remove the threat of possible future-terrorist actions. They stressed how dangerous his non-existent WOMD were and we were in great danger. Remember all that?
Remember the tanks at Heathrow? Remember the grenade at Gatwick? Remember the heightened states of alert with armed police on the ground in London?
We were all panicky and scared, asking our leader to wage war to "protect us from the threat of what Saddam may do"
It was all about stopping him from attacking The West.
Now that the war is in full swing?
Bush "The people of Iraq need to know we will free them"
Blair "We are there to liberate, not occupy"
The emphasis has changed now they've got support for their little war.
It's no longer about stopping the threat we face as a country from Hussein - it's now about "freeing the people of Iraq"
Oddly, the moment we went to war, the armed police were removed, the tanks at Heathrow removed, the possible threats never mentioned.
Remember London was going to have a training exercise about what to in the event of an attack? Not any more it's not.
Panic buying of water, being advised by newspapers and the government to stock up on stuff "just in case".
But now we're actually killing Iraqis by the thousands (innocents, Brit troops and journalists as well)?
This "threat to our nation" has evaporated.
This is called manipulating the population through mass hysteria and using fear to rule and obtain your own desires.
Blair wanted war - we said "no"
Blair said "WOMD" - we said "There's no proof"
Blair said "He could attack London! Tanks!" - we said "Er..where?"
Blair said "He's evil" - we said "How?"
It was all about convincing the public that unless we went to war, Saddam Hussein would come over and rape your nan along with bringing 24 million Albanian gangsters with him to move next door and poo on your lawn.
It was about whipping up fear and suspicion in you and me, it was about making us hate and fear Hussein so we'd be straining for war.
And then we went to war.
And suddenly we all saw just how little resistance there was there. We saw British troops being killed by American troops, we saw Baghdad being bombed into the ground, we saw the Military saying "They're not welcoming us with open arms" and public opinion began to question if we were doing the right thing there, seeing as the Iraqi army were surrendering in their thousands - they didn't actually present any threat at all and we've found no WOMD, just some hazmat suits.
So what's the excuse/reason now?
Thaaat's right,it's freeing the poor Iraqis.
It's no longer about the threat to our country. Because there isn't one, never was one and never will be one from Iraq - which is what the anti-war lobby was saying when they were trying to get us to hate Iraq.
So, cleverly, it's no longer about stopping Hussein's evil terrorist plots, it's about rescuing poor innocent children and old women - because anyone that objects to that is a hateful commie sonofabitch.
It's manipulation folks, plain and simple.
No more reports about WOMD, no more talk about Al Queda, no more discussion about what Hussein may do to this country.
It's all "winning of hearts and minds" now, it's all about "the children" and making sure we're doing the right thing by these innocent, wide-eyed victims.
Except what are we doing?
The exact same thing we were doing when the reason for the war was to wipe-out a non-existent terrorist threat to England.
This war is a joke, the reasons were a joke and the results will be a joke.
How many civilians dead? How many UK soldiers dead from "blue on blue" incidents?
And the USA has said it will instill a "temporary government" headed by a retired US General, with the 23 interior ministries all being headed by US led choices. The Iraqi Opposition Party has complained saying that they have not been included in any discussions about the future of Iraq.
This war has gone from being about protecting our country, to liberating these poor people to the USA installing it's own government when it's all over.
Which is the reason this happened anyway.
Dust settles, people dead and the USA sitting in charge of Iraq just as it used to be with Iran before The Ayatollah came along and ruined everything.
This isn't about oil - it's about increasing the USA Empire.
Blair "Saddam Hussein is a genuine threat to our country. He presents a terrorist-in-waiting and we have to act to remove this danger to world peace"
Bush "Hussein is part of the axxis of evil, he possesses weapons of mass destruction"
They were presenting the need for the war as a way to remove the threat of possible future-terrorist actions. They stressed how dangerous his non-existent WOMD were and we were in great danger. Remember all that?
Remember the tanks at Heathrow? Remember the grenade at Gatwick? Remember the heightened states of alert with armed police on the ground in London?
We were all panicky and scared, asking our leader to wage war to "protect us from the threat of what Saddam may do"
It was all about stopping him from attacking The West.
Now that the war is in full swing?
Bush "The people of Iraq need to know we will free them"
Blair "We are there to liberate, not occupy"
The emphasis has changed now they've got support for their little war.
It's no longer about stopping the threat we face as a country from Hussein - it's now about "freeing the people of Iraq"
Oddly, the moment we went to war, the armed police were removed, the tanks at Heathrow removed, the possible threats never mentioned.
Remember London was going to have a training exercise about what to in the event of an attack? Not any more it's not.
Panic buying of water, being advised by newspapers and the government to stock up on stuff "just in case".
But now we're actually killing Iraqis by the thousands (innocents, Brit troops and journalists as well)?
This "threat to our nation" has evaporated.
This is called manipulating the population through mass hysteria and using fear to rule and obtain your own desires.
Blair wanted war - we said "no"
Blair said "WOMD" - we said "There's no proof"
Blair said "He could attack London! Tanks!" - we said "Er..where?"
Blair said "He's evil" - we said "How?"
It was all about convincing the public that unless we went to war, Saddam Hussein would come over and rape your nan along with bringing 24 million Albanian gangsters with him to move next door and poo on your lawn.
It was about whipping up fear and suspicion in you and me, it was about making us hate and fear Hussein so we'd be straining for war.
And then we went to war.
And suddenly we all saw just how little resistance there was there. We saw British troops being killed by American troops, we saw Baghdad being bombed into the ground, we saw the Military saying "They're not welcoming us with open arms" and public opinion began to question if we were doing the right thing there, seeing as the Iraqi army were surrendering in their thousands - they didn't actually present any threat at all and we've found no WOMD, just some hazmat suits.
So what's the excuse/reason now?
Thaaat's right,it's freeing the poor Iraqis.
It's no longer about the threat to our country. Because there isn't one, never was one and never will be one from Iraq - which is what the anti-war lobby was saying when they were trying to get us to hate Iraq.
So, cleverly, it's no longer about stopping Hussein's evil terrorist plots, it's about rescuing poor innocent children and old women - because anyone that objects to that is a hateful commie sonofabitch.
It's manipulation folks, plain and simple.
No more reports about WOMD, no more talk about Al Queda, no more discussion about what Hussein may do to this country.
It's all "winning of hearts and minds" now, it's all about "the children" and making sure we're doing the right thing by these innocent, wide-eyed victims.
Except what are we doing?
The exact same thing we were doing when the reason for the war was to wipe-out a non-existent terrorist threat to England.
This war is a joke, the reasons were a joke and the results will be a joke.
How many civilians dead? How many UK soldiers dead from "blue on blue" incidents?
And the USA has said it will instill a "temporary government" headed by a retired US General, with the 23 interior ministries all being headed by US led choices. The Iraqi Opposition Party has complained saying that they have not been included in any discussions about the future of Iraq.
This war has gone from being about protecting our country, to liberating these poor people to the USA installing it's own government when it's all over.
Which is the reason this happened anyway.
Dust settles, people dead and the USA sitting in charge of Iraq just as it used to be with Iran before The Ayatollah came along and ruined everything.
This isn't about oil - it's about increasing the USA Empire.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> SHEEPY wrote:
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
>
> WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on
> Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
>
> He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
>
> How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
Do you not agree that by saying they are 'liberating' Iraq, Bush and Blair are setting a massively dangerous precedent? For if Iraq is deserved of liberation because a few towelheads have been running around with AK47s and spilt a few chemicals ten years ago, what do they then do about North Korea, that spends 25% of its annual budget on its military, condemning its citizens to squalid poverty? Are the US and UK going to be packing up in Baghdad only to set sail for Pyongyang, or is that case different just because they have Nuclear weapons? The US does not negotiate with terrorists, remember?
Even if Tony Blair and in particular the Bush administration had stuck to the same arguement all throughout the leadup to the invasion, you'd have still been able to pick fatal flaws in their logic. It's only by juggling them like hot potatos as and when it suits them, as well as sitting on dissenting sections of the media that the US and UK have got the majority of public support behind them.
> SHEEPY wrote:
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
>
> WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on
> Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
>
> He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
>
> How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
Do you not agree that by saying they are 'liberating' Iraq, Bush and Blair are setting a massively dangerous precedent? For if Iraq is deserved of liberation because a few towelheads have been running around with AK47s and spilt a few chemicals ten years ago, what do they then do about North Korea, that spends 25% of its annual budget on its military, condemning its citizens to squalid poverty? Are the US and UK going to be packing up in Baghdad only to set sail for Pyongyang, or is that case different just because they have Nuclear weapons? The US does not negotiate with terrorists, remember?
Even if Tony Blair and in particular the Bush administration had stuck to the same arguement all throughout the leadup to the invasion, you'd have still been able to pick fatal flaws in their logic. It's only by juggling them like hot potatos as and when it suits them, as well as sitting on dissenting sections of the media that the US and UK have got the majority of public support behind them.
Star Fury wrote:
> A lot of the opposition to this is starting to look rather desperate
> and silly....but hey, it always has.....
---
After a break and you still cant resist your sub-infant outlook on life can you kid?
You're right, get back to playing your Xbox. It's just about your level and you can always cheat if you get stuck.
> A lot of the opposition to this is starting to look rather desperate
> and silly....but hey, it always has.....
---
After a break and you still cant resist your sub-infant outlook on life can you kid?
You're right, get back to playing your Xbox. It's just about your level and you can always cheat if you get stuck.
Star Fury wrote:
> *goes back to playing Xbox*
--
Get back here you goddamn mindless coward and answer my point to you in the post I'm popping right now.
You dont get off that easy Mr Switch-Thought.
> *goes back to playing Xbox*
--
Get back here you goddamn mindless coward and answer my point to you in the post I'm popping right now.
You dont get off that easy Mr Switch-Thought.
Skarra wrote:
> SHEEPY wrote:
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
>
> WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on
> Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
>
> He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
>
> How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
Iraq is meant to be a wealthy country look what saddam has done.
> SHEEPY wrote:
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
>
> WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on
> Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
>
> He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
>
> How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
Iraq is meant to be a wealthy country look what saddam has done.
Hammertime?
SHEEPY wrote:
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
> Blair suffers from doublethink
>
> He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
WHAT!!! He sais Iraq has WMD, we know it does, he's used them on Halabja. 5000 men, women and children dead!
He's sais the people of Iraq are oppressed, well they ain't free!!!
How are his reasons lies??? Back up your flawed point!
The dude who wrote this post is a fool. The reports that the US are putting their government in are speculation. Did u watch the 7PM breifing on Fox News by US higher ups. They said no US official would rule Iraq.
You say the reasons arn't there, ask the Kurds what they think!!!!!!
You say the reasons arn't there, ask the Kurds what they think!!!!!!
But, for all the cynicism and fuss before the war, opposition is evaporating like water in the desert.... about a 1000 people marched in London at the weekend !
The crimes of the regime are being exposed, and we are winning.
A lot of the opposition to this is starting to look rather desperate and silly....but hey, it always has.....
*goes back to playing Xbox*
The crimes of the regime are being exposed, and we are winning.
A lot of the opposition to this is starting to look rather desperate and silly....but hey, it always has.....
*goes back to playing Xbox*
I'm not too sure about the highly cynical take on the tanks at Heathrow. They were in response to a supposed Al Quaeda threat, rather than Saddam. But then you are right in a way, because Blair and Bush have made it clear that Al Quaeda and Saddam are definitely in cahoots. Osama bin Laden releases a tape saying "Look I hate Saddam but I hate the West more, Muslims rise up and come to the aide of Islam in Iraq, not the infidel Hussein." Bush says "look he supports Saddam! He supports Saddam!". Moron.
Anyone who names their main airport after himself needs his head examined.
Saddam International Airport, ho ho ho...
Saddam International Airport, ho ho ho...
Page: