The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Come on now! That's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
> You don't have to be totally for or against something to be putting
> the wrong emphasis on it.
I do think the US/UK were wrong when on one hand they bleated until everyone got sick of it about 'UN resolution 1441' and on the other hand completely ignored the will of the UN, I think it is a hypocrasy worth highlighting and a distinction worth making.
> No, I really can't see the similarity between two rouge states
> (granted, of varying "rogue-ness") being examined by the
> UN’s weapons inspectors. Saddam was playing games, much like he did
> for 12 years, much like he'd still be doing now unless action was
> taken. #1441 demanded a surrender of WOMD, not to begin a game of
> hide and seek with them.
I can't really contest whether the Iraqi's were playing games - Blix said he was making progress, but we all know they are more than likely to be mucking around. In any case, the UN had a second resolution in the works but the US and UK forced the war through anyway. One has to question what was so desperately urgent that they couldn't wait for the rest of the UN? Clearly there were ulterior motives, and disregarding what they were/are, I don't agree with the way the coalition has played this war out, and that, more than anything they've done in Iraq, is what worries me about this war.
> Ermmm... so Hitler should have been allowed to slaughter the German
> Jew's because that was how he chose to govern his own country? Saddam
> should be allowed to torture and kill his detractors while starving
> his supporters, all the while edging back into the swing of his scheme
> of ethnic cleansing among the Kurds?
Britain didn't declare war on Germany until Germany invaded Poland, which happened too long after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Britain said "okay you can go that far, but if you take Poland we will have no choice but to act". What Hitler was doing to the Jews was of little consequence to Chamberlain when faced with 5 million heavily armed German soldiers. Granted there are better examples you could have used - NATO involvement in Bosnia is a recent example of a coalition intervening on almost purely humanitarian grounds. But that was a lot more clear cut - Yugoslavia had fallen apart and the Serbs were conducting a horrifying policy of ethnic cleansing. The US were right to intervene there, I doubt even Milosevic would disagree. Of course with Iraq, it becomes a lot stickier. What gives the US the right to decide how other governments should govern their people? Taking Iraq in isolation is not an option - once you invade one country, you set a precedent that lines up a dozen more. It doesn't matter whether you see it this way or not - those countries see it that way, and are frantically arming themselves in pre-emption of the US knocking on their door. This will inflame their neighbours, who will build more arms. You only have to look at North Korea to see this happening - look at the rhetoric coming out of Pyong-Yang, see how it threatens to pull Japan out of its pacifist constitution for the first time since the second world war.
And the US hardly has a gleaming record on human rights. 900,000 Vietnamese died in the war there via US carpet bombing, and the Agent Orange they sprayed there to kill the forests was recently found to contain very high levels of cancer causing agents. Not long afterwards the Khmer Rouge in neighbouring Cambodia killed 10% of it's 10 million population, supported by the US because of its anti-Vietnam stance. The US recently reaped the seeds it sowed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980's, when it supplied weapons to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to fight off Russia/Iran respectively. Those same weapons were used against US forces in the recent conflicts. September 11th should have been a time for the US to learn from its mistakes, learn why it is so hated in the wider world and recognise that it could not longer consider itself invulnerable, but it seems that learning is as far away as ever, the hatred is growing again and more terrorists attacks can't be far off.
> Come on now! That's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
> You don't have to be totally for or against something to be putting
> the wrong emphasis on it.
I do think the US/UK were wrong when on one hand they bleated until everyone got sick of it about 'UN resolution 1441' and on the other hand completely ignored the will of the UN, I think it is a hypocrasy worth highlighting and a distinction worth making.
> No, I really can't see the similarity between two rouge states
> (granted, of varying "rogue-ness") being examined by the
> UN’s weapons inspectors. Saddam was playing games, much like he did
> for 12 years, much like he'd still be doing now unless action was
> taken. #1441 demanded a surrender of WOMD, not to begin a game of
> hide and seek with them.
I can't really contest whether the Iraqi's were playing games - Blix said he was making progress, but we all know they are more than likely to be mucking around. In any case, the UN had a second resolution in the works but the US and UK forced the war through anyway. One has to question what was so desperately urgent that they couldn't wait for the rest of the UN? Clearly there were ulterior motives, and disregarding what they were/are, I don't agree with the way the coalition has played this war out, and that, more than anything they've done in Iraq, is what worries me about this war.
> Ermmm... so Hitler should have been allowed to slaughter the German
> Jew's because that was how he chose to govern his own country? Saddam
> should be allowed to torture and kill his detractors while starving
> his supporters, all the while edging back into the swing of his scheme
> of ethnic cleansing among the Kurds?
Britain didn't declare war on Germany until Germany invaded Poland, which happened too long after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Britain said "okay you can go that far, but if you take Poland we will have no choice but to act". What Hitler was doing to the Jews was of little consequence to Chamberlain when faced with 5 million heavily armed German soldiers. Granted there are better examples you could have used - NATO involvement in Bosnia is a recent example of a coalition intervening on almost purely humanitarian grounds. But that was a lot more clear cut - Yugoslavia had fallen apart and the Serbs were conducting a horrifying policy of ethnic cleansing. The US were right to intervene there, I doubt even Milosevic would disagree. Of course with Iraq, it becomes a lot stickier. What gives the US the right to decide how other governments should govern their people? Taking Iraq in isolation is not an option - once you invade one country, you set a precedent that lines up a dozen more. It doesn't matter whether you see it this way or not - those countries see it that way, and are frantically arming themselves in pre-emption of the US knocking on their door. This will inflame their neighbours, who will build more arms. You only have to look at North Korea to see this happening - look at the rhetoric coming out of Pyong-Yang, see how it threatens to pull Japan out of its pacifist constitution for the first time since the second world war.
And the US hardly has a gleaming record on human rights. 900,000 Vietnamese died in the war there via US carpet bombing, and the Agent Orange they sprayed there to kill the forests was recently found to contain very high levels of cancer causing agents. Not long afterwards the Khmer Rouge in neighbouring Cambodia killed 10% of it's 10 million population, supported by the US because of its anti-Vietnam stance. The US recently reaped the seeds it sowed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980's, when it supplied weapons to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to fight off Russia/Iran respectively. Those same weapons were used against US forces in the recent conflicts. September 11th should have been a time for the US to learn from its mistakes, learn why it is so hated in the wider world and recognise that it could not longer consider itself invulnerable, but it seems that learning is as far away as ever, the hatred is growing again and more terrorists attacks can't be far off.
The way I see it.
Saddam is a tart. Iraqi people need to be helped.
USA / UK see this. But 'Saddam is a tart' is not a legal reason to go and save the Iraqi people. So they invent the 'womd' stuff and all that in order for the war to be legal.
Saddam is a tart. Iraqi people need to be helped.
USA / UK see this. But 'Saddam is a tart' is not a legal reason to go and save the Iraqi people. So they invent the 'womd' stuff and all that in order for the war to be legal.
Miserableman wrote:
> The example is not valid, because by going to do a GNVQ you're not
> actively defying the frantic pleas of the Government to stop. Imagine
> you said to your son that he needed to earn a living, and he came back
> a week later and said he was going to move to Amsterdam and become a
> male gigolo, hmmm?
Come on now! That's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You don't have to be totally for or against something to be putting the wrong emphasis on it.
> There is no distinction. Iraq were beginning to provide the necessary
> level of co-operation before the invasion, Blix was winning them over
> (albeit Western pressure will have had something to do with it). The
> job of the UN team was to find the missing WMD - that's why they did
> suprise inspections, that's why they tried to do interviews with Iraqi
> scientists in private, that's why they took papers away.
No, I really can't see the similarity between two rouge states (granted, of varying "rogue-ness") being examined by the UN’s weapons inspectors. Saddam was playing games, much like he did for 12 years, much like he'd still be doing now unless action was taken. #1441 demanded a surrender of WOMD, not to begin a game of hide and seek with them.
> Oho, so you advocate invasion of another country just because you
> don't agree with how they govern themselves? Isn't this tabloid
> diplomacy? It sets an extremely dangerous precedent - how do you
> decide who is Western-value-friendly and who isn't?
Ermmm... so Hitler should have been allowed to slaughter the German Jew's because that was how he chose to govern his own country? Saddam should be allowed to torture and kill his detractors while starving his supporters, all the while edging back into the swing of his scheme of ethnic cleansing among the Kurds?
> The example is not valid, because by going to do a GNVQ you're not
> actively defying the frantic pleas of the Government to stop. Imagine
> you said to your son that he needed to earn a living, and he came back
> a week later and said he was going to move to Amsterdam and become a
> male gigolo, hmmm?
Come on now! That's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You don't have to be totally for or against something to be putting the wrong emphasis on it.
> There is no distinction. Iraq were beginning to provide the necessary
> level of co-operation before the invasion, Blix was winning them over
> (albeit Western pressure will have had something to do with it). The
> job of the UN team was to find the missing WMD - that's why they did
> suprise inspections, that's why they tried to do interviews with Iraqi
> scientists in private, that's why they took papers away.
No, I really can't see the similarity between two rouge states (granted, of varying "rogue-ness") being examined by the UN’s weapons inspectors. Saddam was playing games, much like he did for 12 years, much like he'd still be doing now unless action was taken. #1441 demanded a surrender of WOMD, not to begin a game of hide and seek with them.
> Oho, so you advocate invasion of another country just because you
> don't agree with how they govern themselves? Isn't this tabloid
> diplomacy? It sets an extremely dangerous precedent - how do you
> decide who is Western-value-friendly and who isn't?
Ermmm... so Hitler should have been allowed to slaughter the German Jew's because that was how he chose to govern his own country? Saddam should be allowed to torture and kill his detractors while starving his supporters, all the while edging back into the swing of his scheme of ethnic cleansing among the Kurds?
Miserableman wrote:
> Are you being sarcastic, or do you really believe this? Are you from
> Texas?
I'm not being sarcastic, just a little sadistic and satirical. I really believe that, because its true. Unless you interpret the world in a different way to me of course. And finally I'm not from Texas. Try the Home Counties, where the middle class think they're better than everyone else with out-of-place Porsche Boxsters sitting outside semi-detached houses.
> Are you being sarcastic, or do you really believe this? Are you from
> Texas?
I'm not being sarcastic, just a little sadistic and satirical. I really believe that, because its true. Unless you interpret the world in a different way to me of course. And finally I'm not from Texas. Try the Home Counties, where the middle class think they're better than everyone else with out-of-place Porsche Boxsters sitting outside semi-detached houses.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> No, because you can agree with the general principle's of an
> organization without agreeing with their means of achieving them. For
> example, I agree, like the government, that all kids are entitled to a
> good education. I don't agree with their current methods of almost
> forcing every pupil into a university rather than highlighting the
> other further education routes. The UN violations were simply an
> example of how Iraq had been offered a peaceful alternative and failed
> to comply.
The example is not valid, because by going to do a GNVQ you're not actively defying the frantic pleas of the Government to stop. Imagine you said to your son that he needed to earn a living, and he came back a week later and said he was going to move to Amsterdam and become a male gigolo, hmmm?
> The UN team was of Weapons Inspectors, not weapon finders, there job
> wasn't to hunt for WOMD. South Africa did it right, team goes in,
> weapon's are displayed to them, team decides whatever based on what
> they see. The strategic trickle of information supplied by Iraq was
> far from the intended procedure.
There is no distinction. Iraq were beginning to provide the necessary level of co-operation before the invasion, Blix was winning them over (albeit Western pressure will have had something to do with it). The job of the UN team was to find the missing WMD - that's why they did suprise inspections, that's why they tried to do interviews with Iraqi scientists in private, that's why they took papers away.
> The real flaw was in allowing the emphasis to be put on WOMD at the
> cost of almost totally ignoring the human right's issues.
Oho, so you advocate invasion of another country just because you don't agree with how they govern themselves? Isn't this tabloid diplomacy? It sets an extremely dangerous precedent - how do you decide who is Western-value-friendly and who isn't? Should we invade Zimbabwe because people are starving? How about North Korea, can't back down now, never mind that they've got nuclear weapons that can hit 2 billion people, *people are starving in there*. Russia? They're doing plenty bad things in Chechnya.
Whilst getting rid of bad people is, viewed from a certain angle, a good thing, from another angle it is the invasion of another country for no reason other than you don't like them. That's too big a decision for any one or two countries to make, as we all have skeletons in our closets, and certainly too big for that monkey in Washington.
> No, because you can agree with the general principle's of an
> organization without agreeing with their means of achieving them. For
> example, I agree, like the government, that all kids are entitled to a
> good education. I don't agree with their current methods of almost
> forcing every pupil into a university rather than highlighting the
> other further education routes. The UN violations were simply an
> example of how Iraq had been offered a peaceful alternative and failed
> to comply.
The example is not valid, because by going to do a GNVQ you're not actively defying the frantic pleas of the Government to stop. Imagine you said to your son that he needed to earn a living, and he came back a week later and said he was going to move to Amsterdam and become a male gigolo, hmmm?
> The UN team was of Weapons Inspectors, not weapon finders, there job
> wasn't to hunt for WOMD. South Africa did it right, team goes in,
> weapon's are displayed to them, team decides whatever based on what
> they see. The strategic trickle of information supplied by Iraq was
> far from the intended procedure.
There is no distinction. Iraq were beginning to provide the necessary level of co-operation before the invasion, Blix was winning them over (albeit Western pressure will have had something to do with it). The job of the UN team was to find the missing WMD - that's why they did suprise inspections, that's why they tried to do interviews with Iraqi scientists in private, that's why they took papers away.
> The real flaw was in allowing the emphasis to be put on WOMD at the
> cost of almost totally ignoring the human right's issues.
Oho, so you advocate invasion of another country just because you don't agree with how they govern themselves? Isn't this tabloid diplomacy? It sets an extremely dangerous precedent - how do you decide who is Western-value-friendly and who isn't? Should we invade Zimbabwe because people are starving? How about North Korea, can't back down now, never mind that they've got nuclear weapons that can hit 2 billion people, *people are starving in there*. Russia? They're doing plenty bad things in Chechnya.
Whilst getting rid of bad people is, viewed from a certain angle, a good thing, from another angle it is the invasion of another country for no reason other than you don't like them. That's too big a decision for any one or two countries to make, as we all have skeletons in our closets, and certainly too big for that monkey in Washington.
Mess wrote:
> It's important to look at the bigger picture here. The Middle East
> has always been a bit of a crazy, backwards place and in recent years
> they've been getting a bit big for their boots and the fighting has
> spilled out into the West or they've been commiting atrocious acts of
> Terrorism. Rightly, America have realised that it's time to put their
> foot down (because they ARE like kids these Arabs - going into a
> museum and trashing all their country's heritage? Slapping a statue
> with their shoes?) and so off we go, on a little journey, sorting out
> the bad guys so they can leave us alone and get back to being
> backwards. The leaders aren't important (Bin Laden, Hussein, I'm
> looking at you) because as long as their regimes and groups have been
> disapparated then the threat goes down by a lot. And hey, the Arabs
> get a better Quality of Life for it.
Are you being sarcastic, or do you really believe this? Are you from Texas?
> It's important to look at the bigger picture here. The Middle East
> has always been a bit of a crazy, backwards place and in recent years
> they've been getting a bit big for their boots and the fighting has
> spilled out into the West or they've been commiting atrocious acts of
> Terrorism. Rightly, America have realised that it's time to put their
> foot down (because they ARE like kids these Arabs - going into a
> museum and trashing all their country's heritage? Slapping a statue
> with their shoes?) and so off we go, on a little journey, sorting out
> the bad guys so they can leave us alone and get back to being
> backwards. The leaders aren't important (Bin Laden, Hussein, I'm
> looking at you) because as long as their regimes and groups have been
> disapparated then the threat goes down by a lot. And hey, the Arabs
> get a better Quality of Life for it.
Are you being sarcastic, or do you really believe this? Are you from Texas?
Garin wrote:
> Does each "excuse" need to stand up on its own? Does there need
> to be 1 definitive reason to do it? You can possibly argue this is a
> case where the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts
> (hope you get what I mean).
Of course they do. You can't send someone to jail for 5 reasons, none of which are actually valid. I am probably closer to your opinion on this matter than you think - I agree that now Saddam has gone the world is a better place, for the West, the middle East and the Iraqis. There can be no doubt in anyones mind that Saddam was a pretty nasty piece of work. I am, however, strongly opposed to the manner in which the war was built up to - any faith I had in the US government has long since evaporated because of the way they've just steamrollered their will onto this delicate situation. And now the bizarre situation with Syria is making me doubly sick.
The US cannot go on behaving like this, and the UK cannot go on supporting them. That's my real beef.
> Does each "excuse" need to stand up on its own? Does there need
> to be 1 definitive reason to do it? You can possibly argue this is a
> case where the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts
> (hope you get what I mean).
Of course they do. You can't send someone to jail for 5 reasons, none of which are actually valid. I am probably closer to your opinion on this matter than you think - I agree that now Saddam has gone the world is a better place, for the West, the middle East and the Iraqis. There can be no doubt in anyones mind that Saddam was a pretty nasty piece of work. I am, however, strongly opposed to the manner in which the war was built up to - any faith I had in the US government has long since evaporated because of the way they've just steamrollered their will onto this delicate situation. And now the bizarre situation with Syria is making me doubly sick.
The US cannot go on behaving like this, and the UK cannot go on supporting them. That's my real beef.
It's important to look at the bigger picture here. The Middle East has always been a bit of a crazy, backwards place and in recent years they've been getting a bit big for their boots and the fighting has spilled out into the West or they've been commiting atrocious acts of Terrorism. Rightly, America have realised that it's time to put their foot down (because they ARE like kids these Arabs - going into a museum and trashing all their country's heritage? Slapping a statue with their shoes?) and so off we go, on a little journey, sorting out the bad guys so they can leave us alone and get back to being backwards. The leaders aren't important (Bin Laden, Hussein, I'm looking at you) because as long as their regimes and groups have been disapparated then the threat goes down by a lot. And hey, the Arabs get a better Quality of Life for it.
The other issue is this whole thing with the Palestinians and the Israelis going at each other since 1948 when Great Britain gave up their mandate to the UN. The League of Nations couldn't handle the problem so gave us control in 1922 after we overthrew the Turkish empire, promptly turned into the UN (which is as inept as it's forefather) and took back control of the Palestinian territories only to screw things up again. The only way to get Israel to withdraw from palestinian territories and hoepfully get the Quartet roadmap back on track is to assure Israel that there are no threats from nearby Arab states - and that means the yankees going round to each country one-by-one and rebuilding it. Good luck to them.
The other issue is this whole thing with the Palestinians and the Israelis going at each other since 1948 when Great Britain gave up their mandate to the UN. The League of Nations couldn't handle the problem so gave us control in 1922 after we overthrew the Turkish empire, promptly turned into the UN (which is as inept as it's forefather) and took back control of the Palestinian territories only to screw things up again. The only way to get Israel to withdraw from palestinian territories and hoepfully get the Quartet roadmap back on track is to assure Israel that there are no threats from nearby Arab states - and that means the yankees going round to each country one-by-one and rebuilding it. Good luck to them.
Oh, and I never accepted r reject oil's part in this - we just can't say. I'm saying it is one of a number of factors, but then if things were that desperate Bush could just slap a tweak on his emissions regulations and, in effect, generate a pile of oil anothe way... though not using it. Up then that's opening up a whole new ball park if we start talking about why he doesn't want to do that...
And the replacement dictator/track records. Though one, Muslims are far happier than we would be with a dictatorship, tribal leaders are common for some. However, already an elected leader seems like the popular choice, ironically it may not be the democratic choice. Hopefully the US has learned how NOT to do this already.
And the replacement dictator/track records. Though one, Muslims are far happier than we would be with a dictatorship, tribal leaders are common for some. However, already an elected leader seems like the popular choice, ironically it may not be the democratic choice. Hopefully the US has learned how NOT to do this already.
To be honest I'm not fussed if Bush, Blair and friends are only going in there to free up the oil or whatever. They are getting rid of a tyrant and this hopefully will allow a better living for the Iraqi people. This may just be a by-product of some other goal, but it still happens. If the UN had have organised the Human Rights issues to be the main crime rather than the WOMD issues the whole thing could have panned out very differently.
And the buisness interests bit - what are you going to do? France don't want war for numerous reasons, one being it'll nullify the headstart a French companies had in getting the oil. It's the way of the World - you think those swinging UN votes went against the war or in-line with the minor countries financial links to the big boys? Capatalism baby, gotta love it. Well, you've got to live with it really.
And the buisness interests bit - what are you going to do? France don't want war for numerous reasons, one being it'll nullify the headstart a French companies had in getting the oil. It's the way of the World - you think those swinging UN votes went against the war or in-line with the minor countries financial links to the big boys? Capatalism baby, gotta love it. Well, you've got to live with it really.
Page: