The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Same here.
I have no wish for "our boys" to die.
My point is that I believe if they have the balls to put their lives on the line, this government owes them the respect to not waste that loyalty.
Which I feel they are doing by sending them to help the USA further it's own interests.
Blair is making light of their deaths a lot more than anyone here, by continually preaching about how "right" this is.
I have no wish for "our boys" to die.
My point is that I believe if they have the balls to put their lives on the line, this government owes them the respect to not waste that loyalty.
Which I feel they are doing by sending them to help the USA further it's own interests.
Blair is making light of their deaths a lot more than anyone here, by continually preaching about how "right" this is.
Goatboy wrote:
> Sagacious has a valid point, but I do disagree vehemently with his
> suggestion that anyone that doesn't support the troops is a traitor.
Well traitor is perhaps too strong a word but I have no time for anyone who "makes light" the coalition losses (not that I am accusing your goodself of doing so, I respect your views and intelligence). Whether the war is just or unjust, our troops have no choice but to fight (the consciousness objector is unheard of in today's society) and as crass as it may seem, I'd rather our troops come out unscathed than the Iraqi troops.
I'd rather neither had to fight but they are and so I have to be honest in my opinion.
> Sagacious has a valid point, but I do disagree vehemently with his
> suggestion that anyone that doesn't support the troops is a traitor.
Well traitor is perhaps too strong a word but I have no time for anyone who "makes light" the coalition losses (not that I am accusing your goodself of doing so, I respect your views and intelligence). Whether the war is just or unjust, our troops have no choice but to fight (the consciousness objector is unheard of in today's society) and as crass as it may seem, I'd rather our troops come out unscathed than the Iraqi troops.
I'd rather neither had to fight but they are and so I have to be honest in my opinion.
§n][pe® wrote:
> I know i was aiming at some people who dont care a bit and the
> protestors, they can do all they want but it won't boost the morale of
> the soldiers in the gulf.
---
Maybe not. But I don't see that we should stop expressing our doubts and concerns about these kids dying for no reason that will benefit this country.
And I personally think continually losing fellow soldiers through "friendly fire" would affect them a lot more than people waving placards and saying "Dont let them die for this"
> I know i was aiming at some people who dont care a bit and the
> protestors, they can do all they want but it won't boost the morale of
> the soldiers in the gulf.
---
Maybe not. But I don't see that we should stop expressing our doubts and concerns about these kids dying for no reason that will benefit this country.
And I personally think continually losing fellow soldiers through "friendly fire" would affect them a lot more than people waving placards and saying "Dont let them die for this"
SHEEPY wrote:
> I say we have a revolution
>
> And put a monkey in charge while we get really high and drunk
>
> It'll be good, for a week or two.
Best idea yet.
> I say we have a revolution
>
> And put a monkey in charge while we get really high and drunk
>
> It'll be good, for a week or two.
Best idea yet.
I say we have a revolution
And put a monkey in charge while we get really high and drunk
It'll be good, for a week or two.
And put a monkey in charge while we get really high and drunk
It'll be good, for a week or two.
I know i was aiming at some people who dont care a bit and the protestors, they can do all they want but it won't boost the morale of the soldiers in the gulf.
§n][pe® wrote:
> As long as we are free people can joke about the war but what can the
> iraqy people do?
--
I wasn't joking in one single paragraph of my post.
Nor was I suggesting the "Coalition" withdraw.
Sagacious has a valid point, but I do disagree vehemently with his suggestion that anyone that doesn't support the troops is a traitor.
If you truly supported the troops, then surely you would wish to see their willingnes to die respected with the level it deserves but not wasting dedicated young men & women's lives in what amounts to nothing more than a nice reason for £$ making and allowing the USA a toehold in the Middle East is has lacked since Iran was taken from them?
> As long as we are free people can joke about the war but what can the
> iraqy people do?
--
I wasn't joking in one single paragraph of my post.
Nor was I suggesting the "Coalition" withdraw.
Sagacious has a valid point, but I do disagree vehemently with his suggestion that anyone that doesn't support the troops is a traitor.
If you truly supported the troops, then surely you would wish to see their willingnes to die respected with the level it deserves but not wasting dedicated young men & women's lives in what amounts to nothing more than a nice reason for £$ making and allowing the USA a toehold in the Middle East is has lacked since Iran was taken from them?
Sometimes they don't even have anything.. just a small hosue with no flooring o.O sad to be honest iraq is supposed to be rich with its oil.
§n][pe® wrote:
> As long as we are free people can joke about the war but what can the
> iraqy people do? They dont even have computers, consoles, Dvd players
> like us.
Imagine that, must be terrible! I bet they're all using VHS players and old Atari 2600 systems too!
> As long as we are free people can joke about the war but what can the
> iraqy people do? They dont even have computers, consoles, Dvd players
> like us.
Imagine that, must be terrible! I bet they're all using VHS players and old Atari 2600 systems too!
Have you seen that the "reconstruction of Iraq funds" that have just been approved by congress ($80 billion) are only available to coalition countries: who said there wasn't money to be made from war? I can see that the ultimate removal of Saddam will be a positive for Iraq but it is apparent that this war has another agenda. I was thinking the other night that I am supporting our troops (I have a mate who is fighting) because I have reason to do so (anyone who doesn't is a traitor) but I am also wondering what I'd think about the war if the French, Germans and Russians were the ones who instigated it and were the only countries fighting it.
I'm not sure if I'd be in agreement.
I'm not sure if I'd be in agreement.
Page: