The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of
> organising the practicalities of international politics. When they
> fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do
> rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the
> balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world
> trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to
> gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
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?
Extend this logic further. You have the UN taking its own course, with the majority of the nations on Earth as members, yet one or two nations are acting outside the authority of the UN, bullying and threatening other countries just because they don't agree with the weapons or company they keep, or maybe even just because one of their allies in the region needs to feel a little less threatened. Who then is the 'rogue state'?
> Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of
> organising the practicalities of international politics. When they
> fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do
> rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the
> balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world
> trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to
> gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
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?
Extend this logic further. You have the UN taking its own course, with the majority of the nations on Earth as members, yet one or two nations are acting outside the authority of the UN, bullying and threatening other countries just because they don't agree with the weapons or company they keep, or maybe even just because one of their allies in the region needs to feel a little less threatened. Who then is the 'rogue state'?
Dr Gonzo wrote:
>
> Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the
> forum>thread>post muddles :)
Mu ha ha ha haaa! That'll learn ya.
But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war that hasn't been rebutted already. Which is fair enough, because aside from "It's probably about oil", no-one has.
>
> Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the
> forum>thread>post muddles :)
Mu ha ha ha haaa! That'll learn ya.
But seriously, you haven't actually come up with a reason for this war that hasn't been rebutted already. Which is fair enough, because aside from "It's probably about oil", no-one has.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Love the
> use of "your" in that thread
Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the forum>thread>post muddles :)
> Love the
> use of "your" in that thread
Doh! Made the mistake that always winds me up when others do it, the forum>thread>post muddles :)
Light wrote:
> But none of the anti-war lobby were for leaving Hussein in power.
You're not really reading what anyone had typed, are you? Love the use of "your" in that thread, they way it relates to absolutely nothing mentioned by anyone between your opener and that post.
> But none of the anti-war lobby were for leaving Hussein in power.
You're not really reading what anyone had typed, are you? Love the use of "your" in that thread, they way it relates to absolutely nothing mentioned by anyone between your opener and that post.
Miserableman wrote:
> When your primary reason to consider invading a country is because
> they have been defying UN resolutions for 12 years, it seems sensible
> to wait for UN approval before doing so, no?
Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of organising the practicalities of international politics. When they fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
> When your primary reason to consider invading a country is because
> they have been defying UN resolutions for 12 years, it seems sensible
> to wait for UN approval before doing so, no?
Not really, no. The UN is just a means of administration, a way of organising the practicalities of international politics. When they fail to get the job done why do what France and Germany tells us to do rather than what we believe is right? I'd prefer it if we had the balls to stand up and be counted rather than running around the world trying to beg minor African tribalistic nations to side with us to gain a majority is a long outdated international organization.
Weapons of Ass Destruction
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> NEWS JUST IN!
>
> Saddam's WOMD found at last! Full story below:
> http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/infograph_3914.html
lol!
> NEWS JUST IN!
>
> Saddam's WOMD found at last! Full story below:
> http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/infograph_3914.html
lol!
NEWS JUST IN!
Saddam's WOMD found at last! Full story below:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/infograph_3914.html
Saddam's WOMD found at last! Full story below:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/infograph_3914.html
Light wrote:
> And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we
> weren't stopping until he was dead?
> So where is he?
Ok, Ok. I admit it. I let him stay round my place. You happy?
If you want to see him come round my place at Damascus in Syria.
> And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we
> weren't stopping until he was dead?
> So where is he?
Ok, Ok. I admit it. I let him stay round my place. You happy?
If you want to see him come round my place at Damascus in Syria.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Why is the UN's agreement important anyway?
When your primary reason to consider invading a country is because they have been defying UN resolutions for 12 years, it seems sensible to wait for UN approval before doing so, no?
> Why is the UN's agreement important anyway?
When your primary reason to consider invading a country is because they have been defying UN resolutions for 12 years, it seems sensible to wait for UN approval before doing so, no?
Page: