The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I believe North Korea have a God given right to bear arms just like everyone else!
*Runs*
*Runs*
Page:
pb wrote:
> I don't for one minute think this war comes out of a need for
> peace.
War for peace is totally illogical, I have to agree.
> The war on terror and the war on Iraq are two very seperate
> things. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda or the terrorist
> attacks on the US. This is considered fact, even by the US
> authorities. So why is it labelled as a war on terror? It's a
> personal war by Bush on Saddam.
I think we're done out there and we should hand over the reigns back to the Iraqi people. Whether they can sustain themselves or not..that's on them. Heck, the US is always shelling out aid to all other countries, EVEN with our own citizens unemployed, starving and without health care on the streets. I say we need to bring our troops home already and just send them money. I'd rather be poor with my husband, than without him.
> I don't for one minute think this war comes out of a need for
> peace.
War for peace is totally illogical, I have to agree.
> The war on terror and the war on Iraq are two very seperate
> things. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda or the terrorist
> attacks on the US. This is considered fact, even by the US
> authorities. So why is it labelled as a war on terror? It's a
> personal war by Bush on Saddam.
I think we're done out there and we should hand over the reigns back to the Iraqi people. Whether they can sustain themselves or not..that's on them. Heck, the US is always shelling out aid to all other countries, EVEN with our own citizens unemployed, starving and without health care on the streets. I say we need to bring our troops home already and just send them money. I'd rather be poor with my husband, than without him.
It's not just the US, no, but I think most conflicts ... Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea ... see the US leading the way ...
Kim Jong Il is specifically naming the US ... who he complains is too 'hostile'.
I think the thing we all non-US citizens fear, is that we can impose all the rules and regulations we want on smaller nations .. but who can control the US government? We're at the mercy of whatever hair-brained scheme they come up with, and can't do a damn thing to stop it.
Kim Jong Il is specifically naming the US ... who he complains is too 'hostile'.
I think the thing we all non-US citizens fear, is that we can impose all the rules and regulations we want on smaller nations .. but who can control the US government? We're at the mercy of whatever hair-brained scheme they come up with, and can't do a damn thing to stop it.
biglime wrote:
> The peace out remark makes it all the more ironic, but the fact
> is this. If the US stuck to its own borders, we would all live
> more stress free lives, and the media would go back to more
> trivial things such as post office stamp rises and how smug
> David Cameron always looks. which I would prefer.
Aye, under your rock indeed.
You seem to be under the impression that it's just the US, when in fact it is the UN, which includes the UK.
Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out there in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock is pathetic.
> The peace out remark makes it all the more ironic, but the fact
> is this. If the US stuck to its own borders, we would all live
> more stress free lives, and the media would go back to more
> trivial things such as post office stamp rises and how smug
> David Cameron always looks. which I would prefer.
Aye, under your rock indeed.
You seem to be under the impression that it's just the US, when in fact it is the UN, which includes the UK.
Disengaging the enemy always involves some unpleasantries, you have to admit. Those men and women in uniform are not out there in those courtries in vain and for you to trivialize and demoralise their mission sitting on your butt under your rock is pathetic.
The aim was to dampen the impact, or altogether avoid the passing on of the fact that Afghanistan has been an utter failure. By not showing such a bold cover, passers by and readers alike will not give it the attention that covers usually do.
And the story was still mentioned on the cover and was still in the magazine, it just didn't have the shock value front cover. Though many would say seeing Annie Liebovitz first thing in the morning while eating their breakfast is particularly shocking :-D
Why would the front cover for Asia be in English?
The figure was at its peak, when the US media bombarded its people with one fear report after another that Iraq had WMDs, Muslims were evil and they needed to invade (they omitted the for oil part). Even then the other 50%, admittedly mostly Democrat saw the light. And I commend them for that.
The US media plays an integral part to the wars, without them I doubt any but the die hard Christians and Jews would even feel it was justified. I point you to one such example
Losing Afghanistan
The US media plays an integral part to the wars, without them I doubt any but the die hard Christians and Jews would even feel it was justified. I point you to one such example
Losing Afghanistan
pb wrote:
> There are (or at least, were) soldiers who are looking for all
> the suspects who make up the various movements that have waged a
> 'holy' war on the west. Which is fine. But most of the
> resources seem to be focused on the pointless war in Iraq.
Indeed, we shouldn't be in there, we should have been focusing all our energies on getting Bin Laden and all the various heads of Al Qaida. Course Dubya wants to appease daddy so to hell with that eh
> There are (or at least, were) soldiers who are looking for all
> the suspects who make up the various movements that have waged a
> 'holy' war on the west. Which is fine. But most of the
> resources seem to be focused on the pointless war in Iraq.
Indeed, we shouldn't be in there, we should have been focusing all our energies on getting Bin Laden and all the various heads of Al Qaida. Course Dubya wants to appease daddy so to hell with that eh
Yes, the soldiers risk their lives for their governments (not necessarily their country or peace). They take their orders and (most of them, bar the ones that get on the news for shooting innocent people including news reporters) are just following orders.
I don't for one minute think this war comes out of a need for peace. It might inadvertantly cause some sort of peace for the people their from Saddam, but this brings its own issues. Many of them believe that at least he ran the country with some success, now they have a job feeding their families without getting shot.
The war on terror and the war on Iraq are two very seperate things. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda or the terrorist attacks on the US. This is considered fact, even by the US authorities. So why is it labelled as a war on terror? It's a personal war by Bush on Saddam.
There are (or at least, were) soldiers who are looking for all the suspects who make up the various movements that have waged a 'holy' war on the west. Which is fine. But most of the resources seem to be focused on the pointless war in Iraq.
And don't get me started on Bush and his 'Christian' crusade. How can he possibly call himself a Christian when he bases his whole life on greed and power? Totally opposed to the religion he waves about to win votes...
I don't for one minute think this war comes out of a need for peace. It might inadvertantly cause some sort of peace for the people their from Saddam, but this brings its own issues. Many of them believe that at least he ran the country with some success, now they have a job feeding their families without getting shot.
The war on terror and the war on Iraq are two very seperate things. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda or the terrorist attacks on the US. This is considered fact, even by the US authorities. So why is it labelled as a war on terror? It's a personal war by Bush on Saddam.
There are (or at least, were) soldiers who are looking for all the suspects who make up the various movements that have waged a 'holy' war on the west. Which is fine. But most of the resources seem to be focused on the pointless war in Iraq.
And don't get me started on Bush and his 'Christian' crusade. How can he possibly call himself a Christian when he bases his whole life on greed and power? Totally opposed to the religion he waves about to win votes...
biglime wrote:
> Brainwashed much? The sad thing is around 50% have been moulded
> into the same mind of thought in the US, suppossedly the most
> educated, creative and innovative country with the brightest
> minds in the world.
Heh now where exactly are you getting this figure from? The majority of Americans now see Iraq as a mistake and our forces shouldn't have gone there but of course Dubya wanted revenge for daddy. The fact Bush's approval rating is almost on par with Nixon reflects this seeing as Iraq is a major issue and one Bush's legacy as president will be remembered. (Might be lower now actually, haven't checked for a month or two and he was down to about 31% then)
> Brainwashed much? The sad thing is around 50% have been moulded
> into the same mind of thought in the US, suppossedly the most
> educated, creative and innovative country with the brightest
> minds in the world.
Heh now where exactly are you getting this figure from? The majority of Americans now see Iraq as a mistake and our forces shouldn't have gone there but of course Dubya wanted revenge for daddy. The fact Bush's approval rating is almost on par with Nixon reflects this seeing as Iraq is a major issue and one Bush's legacy as president will be remembered. (Might be lower now actually, haven't checked for a month or two and he was down to about 31% then)
Page: