The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
moo
*ignores SHEEPY and enjoys blissfull stupidity*
*ignores SHEEPY and enjoys blissfull stupidity*
Yeah, leader of England.
And people wonder why Scottish, Welsh and Irish people hate being part of Great Britain
God Save the Queen Mum
And people wonder why Scottish, Welsh and Irish people hate being part of Great Britain
God Save the Queen Mum
The sagacious one wrote:
> HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> In the words of Will Self
>
>
> 'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who
> they wanted to be leader of england'
>
> David Beckham after HalloHowArtThou
> HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> In the words of Will Self
>
>
> 'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who
> they wanted to be leader of england'
>
> David Beckham after HalloHowArtThou
HalloHowArtThou wrote:
> In the words of Will Self
>
>
> 'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who
> they wanted to be leader of england'
David Beckham
> In the words of Will Self
>
>
> 'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who
> they wanted to be leader of england'
David Beckham
Not saddam obviously..
In the words of Will Self
'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who they wanted to be leader of england'
'It would be interesting to get a group of Iraqis and ask them who they wanted to be leader of england'
We shall see.. if we can liberate the iraqi's and make life better and make them free like us we will see.
Blair suffers from doublethink
He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
He believes what he's saying even though he knows its lies
There must be something that Blair has based his resolute and continued affirmation that the war is "okey dokey", apart from the USA's determination to "free Iraq" from oppression. His majority was unsurpassed in previous Governments and it has more to lose than any other prime minister, he seems sincere and although I don't support the Labour party par ce, he has won my grudging respect.
Like I said the war may not be fought for the best of purposes but I believe that there will be some positive outcomes from it. Is one British soldiers life worth 100 Iraqi civilians? Only history will give us the answer to that one.
Like I said the war may not be fought for the best of purposes but I believe that there will be some positive outcomes from it. Is one British soldiers life worth 100 Iraqi civilians? Only history will give us the answer to that one.
I'm sick of all this GMTV-esque pish of 'ralling behind our troops'
Erm no
It's a shame if they die but I don't see why I should be supporting them when I don't support the war itself.
Erm no
It's a shame if they die but I don't see why I should be supporting them when I don't support the war itself.
Page: