The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
That is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"
The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?
I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...
Page:
Miserableman wrote:
> Star Fury wrote:
> A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the
> war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence
> anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
>
>
>
> Okay, here's a fair deal. I'm proposing an initiative to eliminate all
> Islamic terrorists - we outlaw Islam, and kill anyone we suspect of
> being a muslim. Ace don't you think?
>
> A stated aim of the plan is to rid the world of Islamic terrorism.
> Hence, opposition to the plan also opposes effort to rid the world of
> Islamic terrorism. Hence anti-plan = Pro-Islamic terrorism. How can it
> be otherwise?
>
> You are so blind it makes me bl**dy furious.
NO! Anti Plan-Anti Ethnic Clensing!
> Star Fury wrote:
> A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the
> war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence
> anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
>
>
>
> Okay, here's a fair deal. I'm proposing an initiative to eliminate all
> Islamic terrorists - we outlaw Islam, and kill anyone we suspect of
> being a muslim. Ace don't you think?
>
> A stated aim of the plan is to rid the world of Islamic terrorism.
> Hence, opposition to the plan also opposes effort to rid the world of
> Islamic terrorism. Hence anti-plan = Pro-Islamic terrorism. How can it
> be otherwise?
>
> You are so blind it makes me bl**dy furious.
NO! Anti Plan-Anti Ethnic Clensing!
Star Fury wrote:
> A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the
> war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence
> anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
Okay, here's a fair deal. I'm proposing an initiative to eliminate all Islamic terrorists - we outlaw Islam, and kill anyone we suspect of being a muslim. Ace don't you think?
A stated aim of the plan is to rid the world of Islamic terrorism. Hence, opposition to the plan also opposes effort to rid the world of Islamic terrorism. Hence anti-plan = Pro-Islamic terrorism. How can it be otherwise?
You are so blind it makes me bl**dy furious.
> A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the
> war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence
> anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
Okay, here's a fair deal. I'm proposing an initiative to eliminate all Islamic terrorists - we outlaw Islam, and kill anyone we suspect of being a muslim. Ace don't you think?
A stated aim of the plan is to rid the world of Islamic terrorism. Hence, opposition to the plan also opposes effort to rid the world of Islamic terrorism. Hence anti-plan = Pro-Islamic terrorism. How can it be otherwise?
You are so blind it makes me bl**dy furious.
Light wrote:
> Hmm...a good debate this.
>
> My next question would be this: If Iraq was such a huge threat to
> world peace, how come they crumbled in 3 weeks?
Normal Iraqi's decided they didn't want to die for a maniac.
> Nice to see Bell up to his usual trick of implying he has knowledge we
> don't:
You'd be the forum expert on doing that Light.....
Now a new question.
A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
Next, the anti-war lobby frequently made the point that the Iraqi population would not want us to act, that the fight for Baghdad would be long, bloody, and have casualties making Vietnam look like a tea party. Oh deary me.....wrong on that were you not ?
And, along with the very suspicious funding of the Stop The War Coalition, we now have another of it's most vocal proponents, Galloway, exposed as the traitor to his country that many suspected he was. Not everyone in Stop The War had hidden motives, but certainly the funds it began with - the Workers World Party - and those in it's highest levels did have them, and they weren't nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.
> Hmm...a good debate this.
>
> My next question would be this: If Iraq was such a huge threat to
> world peace, how come they crumbled in 3 weeks?
Normal Iraqi's decided they didn't want to die for a maniac.
> Nice to see Bell up to his usual trick of implying he has knowledge we
> don't:
You'd be the forum expert on doing that Light.....
Now a new question.
A stated aim of the war was regime change. Hence, opposition to the war also opposed regime change as a consequence of the war. Hence anti-war = Pro-Saddam. How can it be otherwise ?
Next, the anti-war lobby frequently made the point that the Iraqi population would not want us to act, that the fight for Baghdad would be long, bloody, and have casualties making Vietnam look like a tea party. Oh deary me.....wrong on that were you not ?
And, along with the very suspicious funding of the Stop The War Coalition, we now have another of it's most vocal proponents, Galloway, exposed as the traitor to his country that many suspected he was. Not everyone in Stop The War had hidden motives, but certainly the funds it began with - the Workers World Party - and those in it's highest levels did have them, and they weren't nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.
Zhuge Liang wrote:
> It doesn't matter if you are for or against war, we went to war and it
> is now over. Britain took the most uncomfortable stance in the whole
> thing and have now paid for that in the international community. This
> is because the people of Britain were too divided to see the
> blindingly obvious that war was inevitable because of Bush, but if we
> participated then we could have a say in the aftermath, which we will.
> If anti war people had gotten their way then Saddam would still be in
> power and more iraqs would die in the long term, they let democracy's
> big weakness get exploited in Britain to the point where our own
> government almost tore itself apart. despite the fact war may or
> maynot have been needed people were too self centred to go to war and
> used the excuse of 'iraqi children will die', even though a guy far
> richer that our queen was bathing in a golden bath and on a
> golden toilet when civilians were dieing from starvation. There is no
> point in being against war, especially now that its over and our
> resources would be better concentrating on how to make life better in
> the aftermath for iraqis.
Right...you seem to be saying that one should be fatalistic about the war because it has now happened. Yet the injust reasons behind it (total lack of evidence etc) set an unpleasant precedent; the biggest and most powerful nation in the world invaded another because it didn't like the leadership. So what happens if the US take a dislike to another nation? Will they just be replaced with impunity?
Again, you're assuming anti war means pro Saddam; I'm delighted to see him gone, as are the Iraqi's. However, I'm not happy to see coalition troops in Iraq, and neither are the Iraqi's.
The anti-war excuse you give happens to be one I disagree with; sometimes a few must die to save the lives of the many. Not a pleasant idea, but one that is true. However, what about the myriad of other reasons (Iraqi's will have one dictator replaced with another; a racial war between Kurds, Turks, and Arabs may be set in motion; a religious war between Shi'ites, Sunni's, and Christians may be set in motion; US and UK led businesses will set up shop in Iraq and give them the same fate as many African nations, that is that the nations resources go toward the profits of corportations rather than the welfare of the people). All of these are anti-war concerns, and the end of the war doesn't change them. If anything, events are showing them to be even more relevant. In that respect, the anti war lobby are far better suited to pointing out just how to "concentrating on how to make life better in the aftermath for iraqis."
> It doesn't matter if you are for or against war, we went to war and it
> is now over. Britain took the most uncomfortable stance in the whole
> thing and have now paid for that in the international community. This
> is because the people of Britain were too divided to see the
> blindingly obvious that war was inevitable because of Bush, but if we
> participated then we could have a say in the aftermath, which we will.
> If anti war people had gotten their way then Saddam would still be in
> power and more iraqs would die in the long term, they let democracy's
> big weakness get exploited in Britain to the point where our own
> government almost tore itself apart. despite the fact war may or
> maynot have been needed people were too self centred to go to war and
> used the excuse of 'iraqi children will die', even though a guy far
> richer that our queen was bathing in a golden bath and on a
> golden toilet when civilians were dieing from starvation. There is no
> point in being against war, especially now that its over and our
> resources would be better concentrating on how to make life better in
> the aftermath for iraqis.
Right...you seem to be saying that one should be fatalistic about the war because it has now happened. Yet the injust reasons behind it (total lack of evidence etc) set an unpleasant precedent; the biggest and most powerful nation in the world invaded another because it didn't like the leadership. So what happens if the US take a dislike to another nation? Will they just be replaced with impunity?
Again, you're assuming anti war means pro Saddam; I'm delighted to see him gone, as are the Iraqi's. However, I'm not happy to see coalition troops in Iraq, and neither are the Iraqi's.
The anti-war excuse you give happens to be one I disagree with; sometimes a few must die to save the lives of the many. Not a pleasant idea, but one that is true. However, what about the myriad of other reasons (Iraqi's will have one dictator replaced with another; a racial war between Kurds, Turks, and Arabs may be set in motion; a religious war between Shi'ites, Sunni's, and Christians may be set in motion; US and UK led businesses will set up shop in Iraq and give them the same fate as many African nations, that is that the nations resources go toward the profits of corportations rather than the welfare of the people). All of these are anti-war concerns, and the end of the war doesn't change them. If anything, events are showing them to be even more relevant. In that respect, the anti war lobby are far better suited to pointing out just how to "concentrating on how to make life better in the aftermath for iraqis."
Uhh...lunchtime tomorrow...
Zhuge Liang wrote:
> you never commented on my post
Huh? I had no idea that you wanted me to...all things come to those who wait however...I'll write more at lunchtime.
> you never commented on my post
Huh? I had no idea that you wanted me to...all things come to those who wait however...I'll write more at lunchtime.
you never commented on my post
Skarra wrote:
>
> 1.) Isn't freeing a people oppressed for 24 years a good enough
> reason. Yes, no WMD have been found yet, but in a country twice as big
> as Britain, there's no shortage of hiding place's.
Once again; anti war doesn't mean Pro-Saddam. Freeing an oppressed people is a fantasic reason, but it's not the one that was applied. If it was, the US and UK have a lot more wars to declare. And some of them are on their allies.
No shortage of hiding places? Then how come the US said they knew for a fact that Iraq had them? If that is the case, why not just get them? Also, the US have the head of the Iraqi weapons program. He will provide all the info they need. Yet...still, no weapons?
>
> 2.) The UN didn't back action in Kosovo. You know that, there was
> ethnic clensing by the hour over there. If the UN say the world isn't
> round, does it make it so?!?!? And, there were more UN nations backing
> the action against Iraq that those against it. The Security Council,
> in that i mean mainly Fr, Ger and Chi, there the one's against the
> war. After all, they sold Iraq most of their stuff.
You're right, they didn't. NATO, however, did. NATO has the right to act to defend the stability of western europe (that's it's whole purpose). This right is enshrined in international law. The Yugoslavian screw-up was a threat to european stability as it was right on our doorstep.
More nations backing action? Would you like a list of the bribes offered by America to those nations in return for their support?
The US and UK sold an awful lot of arms to Iraq as well. During the Iran-Iraq war, Gr, UK, US, Fr, Chi, and USSR sold billions of dollars worth of arms to Iraq.
>
> 3.) The thousands of injured and dead. What about the millions, yes,
> millions who died (were killed) under Sadam? Does that mean Sadam's
> right, and we're wrong for freeing them???
Nope. Because (as I've said numerous times now) anti war does not mean Pro-Saddam. I tend to view this whole land grab as having had the right result for all of the wrong reasons.
However, if another nation accused America of torture and murder of people in Guantanamo Bay (which, by the way, has been happening) does that mean anyone can invade them as well?
>
> 4.) Finally, i never heard any mention of not stopping until they've
> got Sadam. Only, the other week, the Bush admin said, now Sadam's
> gone, there happy.
Please, reassure me of something: You're not trying to say that because you didn't read it then it didn't happen are you? The capture or death of Saddam was the main aim of the war according to Rumsfield. If he's dead, where is the body? After all, Chemical Ali's body was found and the bits thaht were left were identified. Why hasn't Saddams? Same reason as Usama Bin Laden's 'body' hasn't been found; neither of 'em are dead.
>
> Don't bother answering this unless you've got a dam good argument
> against these points!
I think I've met that criteria. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the initial post!
>
> 1.) Isn't freeing a people oppressed for 24 years a good enough
> reason. Yes, no WMD have been found yet, but in a country twice as big
> as Britain, there's no shortage of hiding place's.
Once again; anti war doesn't mean Pro-Saddam. Freeing an oppressed people is a fantasic reason, but it's not the one that was applied. If it was, the US and UK have a lot more wars to declare. And some of them are on their allies.
No shortage of hiding places? Then how come the US said they knew for a fact that Iraq had them? If that is the case, why not just get them? Also, the US have the head of the Iraqi weapons program. He will provide all the info they need. Yet...still, no weapons?
>
> 2.) The UN didn't back action in Kosovo. You know that, there was
> ethnic clensing by the hour over there. If the UN say the world isn't
> round, does it make it so?!?!? And, there were more UN nations backing
> the action against Iraq that those against it. The Security Council,
> in that i mean mainly Fr, Ger and Chi, there the one's against the
> war. After all, they sold Iraq most of their stuff.
You're right, they didn't. NATO, however, did. NATO has the right to act to defend the stability of western europe (that's it's whole purpose). This right is enshrined in international law. The Yugoslavian screw-up was a threat to european stability as it was right on our doorstep.
More nations backing action? Would you like a list of the bribes offered by America to those nations in return for their support?
The US and UK sold an awful lot of arms to Iraq as well. During the Iran-Iraq war, Gr, UK, US, Fr, Chi, and USSR sold billions of dollars worth of arms to Iraq.
>
> 3.) The thousands of injured and dead. What about the millions, yes,
> millions who died (were killed) under Sadam? Does that mean Sadam's
> right, and we're wrong for freeing them???
Nope. Because (as I've said numerous times now) anti war does not mean Pro-Saddam. I tend to view this whole land grab as having had the right result for all of the wrong reasons.
However, if another nation accused America of torture and murder of people in Guantanamo Bay (which, by the way, has been happening) does that mean anyone can invade them as well?
>
> 4.) Finally, i never heard any mention of not stopping until they've
> got Sadam. Only, the other week, the Bush admin said, now Sadam's
> gone, there happy.
Please, reassure me of something: You're not trying to say that because you didn't read it then it didn't happen are you? The capture or death of Saddam was the main aim of the war according to Rumsfield. If he's dead, where is the body? After all, Chemical Ali's body was found and the bits thaht were left were identified. Why hasn't Saddams? Same reason as Usama Bin Laden's 'body' hasn't been found; neither of 'em are dead.
>
> Don't bother answering this unless you've got a dam good argument
> against these points!
I think I've met that criteria. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the initial post!
It doesn't matter if you are for or against war, we went to war and it is now over. Britain took the most uncomfortable stance in the whole thing and have now paid for that in the international community. This is because the people of Britain were too divided to see the blindingly obvious that war was inevitable because of Bush, but if we participated then we could have a say in the aftermath, which we will. If anti war people had gotten their way then Saddam would still be in power and more iraqs would die in the long term, they let democracy's big weakness get exploited in Britain to the point where our own government almost tore itself apart. despite the fact war may or maynot have been needed people were too self centred to go to war and used the excuse of 'iraqi children will die', even though a guy far richer that our queen was bathing in a golden bath and on a golden toilet when civilians were dieing from starvation. There is no point in being against war, especially now that its over and our resources would be better concentrating on how to make life better in the aftermath for iraqis.
Light wrote:
> That is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never
> allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.
>
> Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through
> blusterings;
> You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and
> conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean
> "Pro-Saddam"
>
> The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used,
> NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
>
> And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we
> weren't stopping until he was dead?
> So where is he?
>
> I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to
> respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take
> another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with
> their usual reality-free tirade...
Ok, my answer.
1.) Isn't freeing a people oppressed for 24 years a good enough reason. Yes, no WMD have been found yet, but in a country twice as big as Britain, there's no shortage of hiding place's.
2.) The UN didn't back action in Kosovo. You know that, there was ethnic clensing by the hour over there. If the UN say the world isn't round, does it make it so?!?!? And, there were more UN nations backing the action against Iraq that those against it. The Security Council, in that i mean mainly Fr, Ger and Chi, there the one's against the war. After all, they sold Iraq most of their stuff.
3.) The thousands of injured and dead. What about the millions, yes, millions who died (were killed) under Sadam? Does that mean Sadam's right, and we're wrong for freeing them???
4.) Finally, i never heard any mention of not stopping until they've got Sadam. Only, the other week, the Bush admin said, now Sadam's gone, there happy.
Don't bother answering this unless you've got a dam good argument against these points!
> That is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never
> allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.
>
> Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through
> blusterings;
> You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and
> conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean
> "Pro-Saddam"
>
> The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used,
> NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc
>
> And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we
> weren't stopping until he was dead?
> So where is he?
>
> I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to
> respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take
> another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with
> their usual reality-free tirade...
Ok, my answer.
1.) Isn't freeing a people oppressed for 24 years a good enough reason. Yes, no WMD have been found yet, but in a country twice as big as Britain, there's no shortage of hiding place's.
2.) The UN didn't back action in Kosovo. You know that, there was ethnic clensing by the hour over there. If the UN say the world isn't round, does it make it so?!?!? And, there were more UN nations backing the action against Iraq that those against it. The Security Council, in that i mean mainly Fr, Ger and Chi, there the one's against the war. After all, they sold Iraq most of their stuff.
3.) The thousands of injured and dead. What about the millions, yes, millions who died (were killed) under Sadam? Does that mean Sadam's right, and we're wrong for freeing them???
4.) Finally, i never heard any mention of not stopping until they've got Sadam. Only, the other week, the Bush admin said, now Sadam's gone, there happy.
Don't bother answering this unless you've got a dam good argument against these points!
Page: