The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
If it ended here, now, with Iraq free of tyranny, then of course that would be good. Yet today, Dubya is suddenly insistent on allowing US businesses to deal with Iraq. Do we think that the Iraqi people will be the main beneficiaries? Or will it be about 30 of Dubya's business mates?
Also, when one bears in mind the track record of the US for replacing one dictator with another, you'll forgive me for being skeptical that the Iraqi people are really as free as mainstream media would have you believe.
And finally, nice to see that you've accepted that oil did play a big part in this war ;)
Also, when one bears in mind the track record of the US for replacing one dictator with another, you'll forgive me for being skeptical that the Iraqi people are really as free as mainstream media would have you believe.
And finally, nice to see that you've accepted that oil did play a big part in this war ;)
Dr Gonzo wrote:
>
> From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a
> tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more
> even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
Yup; it's definitely right to do that. However, as I've already said; anti war does NOT mean pro-Saddam.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that that is the reason for the war? To overthrow an unelected tyrant? Because when it comes to being an unelected leader, Dubya has no real right to complain...
But that is by the by; what is not is the fact that the US and the UK had no interest in whether or not a dictator remained in power. To suggest that both nations had suddenly grown a conscience and wanted to make the world a better place is...well, it's a wonderful idea, but history suggests that it has no basis in reality. I mean, I'm not trying to belittle anyones opinion here, but come on; have you seen the atrocities our two nations are responsible for? And in recent history too. Yet now we're supposedly on the side of the angels? Please...
>
> From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a
> tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more
> even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
Yup; it's definitely right to do that. However, as I've already said; anti war does NOT mean pro-Saddam.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that that is the reason for the war? To overthrow an unelected tyrant? Because when it comes to being an unelected leader, Dubya has no real right to complain...
But that is by the by; what is not is the fact that the US and the UK had no interest in whether or not a dictator remained in power. To suggest that both nations had suddenly grown a conscience and wanted to make the world a better place is...well, it's a wonderful idea, but history suggests that it has no basis in reality. I mean, I'm not trying to belittle anyones opinion here, but come on; have you seen the atrocities our two nations are responsible for? And in recent history too. Yet now we're supposedly on the side of the angels? Please...
Light wrote:
> Yup; not a single reason for this war rings true. Yet still people say
> "It can't be about the oil". This is despite the fact that
> it is the only reason with sufficient evidence in support of it.
Wait, the oil. Do you think a starving country should be able to sell their oil so they can eat/improve health facilities and general public services? No one is going to steal the oil, the only person who really was stealing it was Saddam. Yeah, the US went in and ring-fenced the oil fields, ohhh, evil sods. Protecting the country's main asset which history shows was at risk when we look to the regeim's actions from the last Gulf War.
There are many reason's for this war, not all are that impressive. Look at the big picture, a nation of people are free from a tyrant. There will be a little bit of fun as we sort out who runs the country and in the whole re-building process, but ultimately a good thing has been achieved.
> Yup; not a single reason for this war rings true. Yet still people say
> "It can't be about the oil". This is despite the fact that
> it is the only reason with sufficient evidence in support of it.
Wait, the oil. Do you think a starving country should be able to sell their oil so they can eat/improve health facilities and general public services? No one is going to steal the oil, the only person who really was stealing it was Saddam. Yeah, the US went in and ring-fenced the oil fields, ohhh, evil sods. Protecting the country's main asset which history shows was at risk when we look to the regeim's actions from the last Gulf War.
There are many reason's for this war, not all are that impressive. Look at the big picture, a nation of people are free from a tyrant. There will be a little bit of fun as we sort out who runs the country and in the whole re-building process, but ultimately a good thing has been achieved.
Miserableman wrote:
> The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
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 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.
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.
> The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
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 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.
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.
Light wrote:
> But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war
> that hasn't been rebutted already.
From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
You can't rebutt an opinion anyway. Disagreeing doesn't prove whether it's wrong or right because these aren't things you can be wrong or right about.
> But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war
> that hasn't been rebutted already.
From one of my earlier posts: "[i]s it right to overthrow a tyrant who kills and tortures his people? Is it right to ensure a more even distribution of the wealth so that people can eat?"
You can't rebutt an opinion anyway. Disagreeing doesn't prove whether it's wrong or right because these aren't things you can be wrong or right about.
Miserableman wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for
> war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
>
>
> I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying,
> but I believe I agree with the rest of the post.
Sorry, let me rephrase then, maybe that helps. :)
I don't believe you can say with any great conviction that the UK/US have defied the UN or its authority when its the UN in the first place that has given them a legal justification. The UN declared Iraq in breach of a resolution that authorised force, nobody else and certainly not the US/UK on their own.
> The US and imo
> particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and
> political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were
> scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years,
> then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're
> liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a
> light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Even though you seem to be anti-war where as I'm pro-war this is one point I can agree with. The way they've behaved really does quite baffle me. They really have put their case across very poorly. There seems to be some unwritten rule in politics, only remember whats happened this week.
They take each "excuse" and concentrate on it to the exclusion of everything else. This thing about terrorism is pretty good example. The US has been accusing Iraq of sponsoring terrorism for the past 15 years or so. Just browsing the net, they even have some fairly convincing arguments supporting it, certainly better anything they've come up with recently. Even resolution 1441 said Iraq wasn't fulfilling its obligations as regards to terrorism. Yet they arrest Abu Abbas and declare "We've linked Iraq to terrorism" as though they've never done it before and Iraq and terrorism is a new thing.
On the other hand, picking up on what you've just written there. 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).
> Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for
> war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
>
>
> I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying,
> but I believe I agree with the rest of the post.
Sorry, let me rephrase then, maybe that helps. :)
I don't believe you can say with any great conviction that the UK/US have defied the UN or its authority when its the UN in the first place that has given them a legal justification. The UN declared Iraq in breach of a resolution that authorised force, nobody else and certainly not the US/UK on their own.
> The US and imo
> particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and
> political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were
> scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years,
> then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're
> liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a
> light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Even though you seem to be anti-war where as I'm pro-war this is one point I can agree with. The way they've behaved really does quite baffle me. They really have put their case across very poorly. There seems to be some unwritten rule in politics, only remember whats happened this week.
They take each "excuse" and concentrate on it to the exclusion of everything else. This thing about terrorism is pretty good example. The US has been accusing Iraq of sponsoring terrorism for the past 15 years or so. Just browsing the net, they even have some fairly convincing arguments supporting it, certainly better anything they've come up with recently. Even resolution 1441 said Iraq wasn't fulfilling its obligations as regards to terrorism. Yet they arrest Abu Abbas and declare "We've linked Iraq to terrorism" as though they've never done it before and Iraq and terrorism is a new thing.
On the other hand, picking up on what you've just written there. 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).
I've turned pro-war.
Go war, yeah!
Seriously though, once it kicked off, the worst thing that could have happened for the Iraqi people was for it to stop. It would have been just like what happened 12 years ago when we last pulled out, leaving all those that tried to rise up against Saddam to die.
I didn't think it should have started in the first reason, simply because Saddam would never have used WOMD, he had nothing to gain from it.
Anyway, shouldn't we have the military back outside airports and the like again now? Those Syrians could attack us at any moment.
Right now I'm quaking (not quacking) in my boots, worried about those nasty Syrians. I hope Mr Bush and Mr Blair set my fears at rest by bombing them.
Don't hampsters come from Syria?
Should I have mine put down, he could be a spy....?
Go war, yeah!
Seriously though, once it kicked off, the worst thing that could have happened for the Iraqi people was for it to stop. It would have been just like what happened 12 years ago when we last pulled out, leaving all those that tried to rise up against Saddam to die.
I didn't think it should have started in the first reason, simply because Saddam would never have used WOMD, he had nothing to gain from it.
Anyway, shouldn't we have the military back outside airports and the like again now? Those Syrians could attack us at any moment.
Right now I'm quaking (not quacking) in my boots, worried about those nasty Syrians. I hope Mr Bush and Mr Blair set my fears at rest by bombing them.
Don't hampsters come from Syria?
Should I have mine put down, he could be a spy....?
Yup; not a single reason for this war rings true. Yet still people say "It can't be about the oil". This is despite the fact that it is the only reason with sufficient evidence in support of it.
Garin wrote:
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying, but I believe I agree with the rest of the post. The US and imo particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years, then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
> Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own
> beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear
> statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the
> US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war.
> That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at
> all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against
> their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of
> fact.
I couldn't decipher that last line despite repeated attempts trying, but I believe I agree with the rest of the post. The US and imo particularly Tony Blair twisted and turned to provide moral and political justification for the invasion of Iraq. One moment they were scrutinising Saddam because he's been defying the UN for 12 years, then they're claiming he's harbouring terrorists, then they're liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny etc. When held up against a light, none of these excuses stand up on their own.
Miserableman wrote:
> Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved
> on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand
> claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying
> UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
>
Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war. That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of fact.
> Clearly the UN is broken and needs modernising, as the world has moved
> on from the era in which it was formed, but you can't on the one hand
> claim that Saddam needs to be taken down because he has been defying
> UN resolutions, and then defy the UN by acting too quickly? The UN had
> their own team in Iraq, seeking out WMD and it was working, but the US
> and UK went against the authority of the UN to satisfy the will of the
> UN. Disregarding any flaws in the way the UN works, does that not seem
> more than a little bit upside-down?
>
Not really. I think the reality is, the UN got caught in its own beaurocracy and inability to enforce its decisions and make clear statements about things. If you want to take the cynical view, the US/UK exploited the UN to give themselves legal justification for war. That they managed to come up with any sort of legal justification at all certainly suggests saying they defied the UN and went against their authority is quite a subjective statement rather than one of fact.
Page: