The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3006149.stm
Halliburton contract awarded without bidding expands to cover "pumping and distribution of oil". Originally awarded to cap and control oil field fires.
Sleight of hand, a few mirrors, one airlifted Iraqi kid with no arms and voila.
US troops open fire on crowd killing several, rising anti-US feeling from Iraqi civilians still without basic facilities and what happens?
"Look, we released some people from Camp X-Ray. We care about brown people"
You released people after a year and a half without charge.
*slow clap*
Hussein remains at large. Said they wouldn't kill him before the invasion.
Bin Laden remains at large.
You'll forgive my cynicism at hearing that Halliburton are now able to pump and distribute the oil. I'm sure it's all about liberating those poor civilians.
Halliburton contract awarded without bidding expands to cover "pumping and distribution of oil". Originally awarded to cap and control oil field fires.
Sleight of hand, a few mirrors, one airlifted Iraqi kid with no arms and voila.
US troops open fire on crowd killing several, rising anti-US feeling from Iraqi civilians still without basic facilities and what happens?
"Look, we released some people from Camp X-Ray. We care about brown people"
You released people after a year and a half without charge.
*slow clap*
Hussein remains at large. Said they wouldn't kill him before the invasion.
Bin Laden remains at large.
You'll forgive my cynicism at hearing that Halliburton are now able to pump and distribute the oil. I'm sure it's all about liberating those poor civilians.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> your (it
> was yours right ?) idea of N.Korea selling Pyongyang launchers was one
> of the most insane things I've heard on the forums, "because it's
> easy to hide a b*oody greay missile launcher"...lol
Just to set the record straight - it WASN'T mine.
> your (it
> was yours right ?) idea of N.Korea selling Pyongyang launchers was one
> of the most insane things I've heard on the forums, "because it's
> easy to hide a b*oody greay missile launcher"...lol
Just to set the record straight - it WASN'T mine.
*chuckling*
Ssshh, don't spoil it Mr Light, he'll catch on.
*ahem*
Nope Bell, at no point have I defended or tried to justify the postings of other people.
Nor have I proffered reasons for the actions of anyone else except for myself. Which is why I discuss a subject, I restrict it to my feelings and my thoughts on actions.
Why?
Because I'm not in the CIA or MI5 or the government or in Iraq or in the SAS, nor am I an UN Weapons Inspector and, last time I checked, neither am I Captain Freedom.
Hence I write about my emotions on a subject, why I think the way I do and why my feelings and thoughts are the way they are.
Something you've done once - and then refuted it with "I just wrote it to get a reaction"
The reason you're amusing Bell is that you state (again) without any personal opinion or thoughts, merely trotting out standard party line from your American idols. I mean really, go read what you wrote in the Donald Rumsfeld thread....do you seriously expect to be taken seriously on anything at all at any time?
Your replies form 1 basic pattern:
No personal input whatsoever, merely the repetition of facts gleaned from the 1st website you come across on Yahoo (as with the Ebola thing).
You seem unable to admit that you may not know a subject, and have to position yourself as the ultimate authority on a subject - and having taken that position, will defend it without exception. Even when it becomes patently clear you're being laughed at, you still insist on trying to defend your original post, chasing the tail of your dogma.
You're not an intelligent poster Bell. Dr Gonzo is, Ultimate is. They both are pro-war but can offer their reasons as to why the feel that, instead of mouthing the words and opinions of others.
I give it by tonight before you come back and preen like a peacock, determined to be proved right on whatever point. The "I was, wait for it, wrong" thread dragged on and on and on and on to the point of pastiche, because you always, and I mean *always* have to get the last word.
So post away Mr Dandy, because you've crossed from intelligent debater into a stubborn, lost-the-point Mr Argument who can't even remember what the original topic was about.
And I'm *still* waiting for your responses to my questions kid.
Ssshh, don't spoil it Mr Light, he'll catch on.
*ahem*
Nope Bell, at no point have I defended or tried to justify the postings of other people.
Nor have I proffered reasons for the actions of anyone else except for myself. Which is why I discuss a subject, I restrict it to my feelings and my thoughts on actions.
Why?
Because I'm not in the CIA or MI5 or the government or in Iraq or in the SAS, nor am I an UN Weapons Inspector and, last time I checked, neither am I Captain Freedom.
Hence I write about my emotions on a subject, why I think the way I do and why my feelings and thoughts are the way they are.
Something you've done once - and then refuted it with "I just wrote it to get a reaction"
The reason you're amusing Bell is that you state (again) without any personal opinion or thoughts, merely trotting out standard party line from your American idols. I mean really, go read what you wrote in the Donald Rumsfeld thread....do you seriously expect to be taken seriously on anything at all at any time?
Your replies form 1 basic pattern:
No personal input whatsoever, merely the repetition of facts gleaned from the 1st website you come across on Yahoo (as with the Ebola thing).
You seem unable to admit that you may not know a subject, and have to position yourself as the ultimate authority on a subject - and having taken that position, will defend it without exception. Even when it becomes patently clear you're being laughed at, you still insist on trying to defend your original post, chasing the tail of your dogma.
You're not an intelligent poster Bell. Dr Gonzo is, Ultimate is. They both are pro-war but can offer their reasons as to why the feel that, instead of mouthing the words and opinions of others.
I give it by tonight before you come back and preen like a peacock, determined to be proved right on whatever point. The "I was, wait for it, wrong" thread dragged on and on and on and on to the point of pastiche, because you always, and I mean *always* have to get the last word.
So post away Mr Dandy, because you've crossed from intelligent debater into a stubborn, lost-the-point Mr Argument who can't even remember what the original topic was about.
And I'm *still* waiting for your responses to my questions kid.
Belldandy wrote:
> And this obsession you have with always having to post I want the last
> word really is a little tedious, you want to say what you want but
> don't want a reply, so you put that.
....he said, trying to get the last word.
> And this obsession you have with always having to post I want the last
> word really is a little tedious, you want to say what you want but
> don't want a reply, so you put that.
....he said, trying to get the last word.
And, reciting the words and ideas of Michael Moore, Chomsky et al is hardly "thinking outside the box" is it ?
They're both people with their own views and they express them, and their controversial books sell quite nicely thank you very much....
But, come on Goatboy, lets see you backup some of Blank's claims with something substantial; i.e. proof we really do tell our generals to use WMD at will, proof that we actually are hiding a vast pile of chemicals and biological agents in the country, proof that N.Korea really would bother selling a missile launcher, a substantial reason why we'd want to abandon NATO just to use WMD offensively instead of as a deterrant and retaliation against similar, and so on.
And this obsession you have with always having to post I want the last word really is a little tedious, you want to say what you want but don't want a reply, so you put that.
They're both people with their own views and they express them, and their controversial books sell quite nicely thank you very much....
But, come on Goatboy, lets see you backup some of Blank's claims with something substantial; i.e. proof we really do tell our generals to use WMD at will, proof that we actually are hiding a vast pile of chemicals and biological agents in the country, proof that N.Korea really would bother selling a missile launcher, a substantial reason why we'd want to abandon NATO just to use WMD offensively instead of as a deterrant and retaliation against similar, and so on.
And this obsession you have with always having to post I want the last word really is a little tedious, you want to say what you want but don't want a reply, so you put that.
I take it you agree with Blank's comments then, Goatboy ? I'd readwhat you're defending if I were you...
Blank, forget trying to debate with Bell - it's an entirely pointless exercise.
Not because he's any great intellect, but because he's one of those people that chooses a side and absolutely defends it without considering for a single moment, no matter how obvious it becomes, that he may have made a mistake.
So quick to form an initial opinion yet lacks the courage to accept when he may not be in full possesion of the facts.
The thread about Chomsky for example, or Michael Moore. Or the classic "I was, wait for it, wrong" thread where he changed his mind, only to revert to the tedious, fundamentalist mantra of "I am right and you are wrong because I am right" - and then pretend he wrote it for a joke.
To attempt to enter into discussion with a person that is too blinkered to consider a situation from a viewpoint that differs from their own is dull, futile and a waste of energy.
And if you need any proof whatsoever that Bell is not interested in discussing issues, only interested in trying to prove himself to be correct - just look at his rabid insistance on having the last word on a subject. Or the repeated declerations that he will not partake in these discussions, only to return and add yet another diatribe against anyone that thinks outside the box.
Blank, mate, let it sink and go make some music. This just isn't worth it. It's not running from any debate with some half-wit Kissinger, it's walking away from listening to another opinionated, do-nothing-but-talk wannabe Blair.
I'm off out to have some beers and laugh.
I'll check back tomorrow or Sunday and read the inevitable response, refusal and dismissal.
*sigh*
Not because he's any great intellect, but because he's one of those people that chooses a side and absolutely defends it without considering for a single moment, no matter how obvious it becomes, that he may have made a mistake.
So quick to form an initial opinion yet lacks the courage to accept when he may not be in full possesion of the facts.
The thread about Chomsky for example, or Michael Moore. Or the classic "I was, wait for it, wrong" thread where he changed his mind, only to revert to the tedious, fundamentalist mantra of "I am right and you are wrong because I am right" - and then pretend he wrote it for a joke.
To attempt to enter into discussion with a person that is too blinkered to consider a situation from a viewpoint that differs from their own is dull, futile and a waste of energy.
And if you need any proof whatsoever that Bell is not interested in discussing issues, only interested in trying to prove himself to be correct - just look at his rabid insistance on having the last word on a subject. Or the repeated declerations that he will not partake in these discussions, only to return and add yet another diatribe against anyone that thinks outside the box.
Blank, mate, let it sink and go make some music. This just isn't worth it. It's not running from any debate with some half-wit Kissinger, it's walking away from listening to another opinionated, do-nothing-but-talk wannabe Blair.
I'm off out to have some beers and laugh.
I'll check back tomorrow or Sunday and read the inevitable response, refusal and dismissal.
*sigh*
Blank wrote:
> Legally or illegally - the people on the receiving end come out of it
> just as badly.
And since when was anyone on the receiving end of ours eh?
> Again, whether we deny or not makes no difference to the result, or
> indeed anything. And how do you know we don't tell generals to fire at
> will? Been on the front line recently? Or more likely, relied on TV
> news? Because we all know how reliable that is...
No I haven't been on the front line, but rather strangely we have a military which does not go make it totally secret how it operates, so stop making wild assumptions and go do some reading.
> c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear
> Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
>
> Which we can back out of if we need to.
Because we'd really want to back out of an organisation which guarantees that, should we be attacked, the rest of that organisation automatically declares war on the attacker eh ?
> How do you know all this? Where's the proof?
There are various places we store the stuff, the names evade me right now, but bizarrely we don't just throw the stuff any old place, and we have the brains to put it out of the way of civilians. Do you know ANYTHING about the weapons you are talking about, or the delivery systems needed to use them, or about the difference between having the chem/bio agents and having weaponised versions ?
> e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no
> provacation.
>
> *Cough* We just invaded Iraq.
Really, don't you think that the harbouring of terrorits, refusal to destroy and cease development of WMD, the blatant stealing from the oil for food program by Saddam, the murder of thousands of Iraqi's, and the false imprisonment, torture and rape of thousands more, was provocation ? Okay.
> The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about
> anyone
> then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA
> (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much
> is
> fact.
>
> Oh really? Then how come you knew just a few days ago? You were eer so
> sure back then.
I said "If you want to be worried", not me.......your (it was yours right ?) idea of N.Korea selling Pyongyang launchers was one of the most insane things I've heard on the forums, "because it's easy to hide a b*oody greay missile launcher"...lol
> Legally or illegally - the people on the receiving end come out of it
> just as badly.
And since when was anyone on the receiving end of ours eh?
> Again, whether we deny or not makes no difference to the result, or
> indeed anything. And how do you know we don't tell generals to fire at
> will? Been on the front line recently? Or more likely, relied on TV
> news? Because we all know how reliable that is...
No I haven't been on the front line, but rather strangely we have a military which does not go make it totally secret how it operates, so stop making wild assumptions and go do some reading.
> c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear
> Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
>
> Which we can back out of if we need to.
Because we'd really want to back out of an organisation which guarantees that, should we be attacked, the rest of that organisation automatically declares war on the attacker eh ?
> How do you know all this? Where's the proof?
There are various places we store the stuff, the names evade me right now, but bizarrely we don't just throw the stuff any old place, and we have the brains to put it out of the way of civilians. Do you know ANYTHING about the weapons you are talking about, or the delivery systems needed to use them, or about the difference between having the chem/bio agents and having weaponised versions ?
> e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no
> provacation.
>
> *Cough* We just invaded Iraq.
Really, don't you think that the harbouring of terrorits, refusal to destroy and cease development of WMD, the blatant stealing from the oil for food program by Saddam, the murder of thousands of Iraqi's, and the false imprisonment, torture and rape of thousands more, was provocation ? Okay.
> The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about
> anyone
> then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA
> (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much
> is
> fact.
>
> Oh really? Then how come you knew just a few days ago? You were eer so
> sure back then.
I said "If you want to be worried", not me.......your (it was yours right ?) idea of N.Korea selling Pyongyang launchers was one of the most insane things I've heard on the forums, "because it's easy to hide a b*oody greay missile launcher"...lol
Belldandy wrote:
> a)We've never used them illegally, as in decided we really didn't like
> some people and gassed them
Legally or illegally - the people on the receiving end come out of it just as badly.
> b)We don't deny having them, and we have a proper command and control
> system in place for their use, in other words we don't just tell a
> major he can fire at will.
Again, whether we deny or not makes no difference to the result, or indeed anything. And how do you know we don't tell generals to fire at will? Been on the front line recently? Or more likely, relied on TV news? Because we all know how reliable that is...
> c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear
> Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
Which we can back out of if we need to.
> d)None of our biological or chemical stocks are weaponised, and we
> cannot get rid of all our stocks because to do so means creating
> counter agents would be impossible. Yes, we can weaponise them but we
> just don't have the delivery systems for the use of them anyway.
How do you know all this? Where's the proof?
> e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no
> provacation.
*Cough* We just invaded Iraq.
> The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about anyone
> then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA
> (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much is
> fact.
Oh really? Then how come you knew just a few days ago? You were eer so sure back then.
> a)We've never used them illegally, as in decided we really didn't like
> some people and gassed them
Legally or illegally - the people on the receiving end come out of it just as badly.
> b)We don't deny having them, and we have a proper command and control
> system in place for their use, in other words we don't just tell a
> major he can fire at will.
Again, whether we deny or not makes no difference to the result, or indeed anything. And how do you know we don't tell generals to fire at will? Been on the front line recently? Or more likely, relied on TV news? Because we all know how reliable that is...
> c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear
> Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
Which we can back out of if we need to.
> d)None of our biological or chemical stocks are weaponised, and we
> cannot get rid of all our stocks because to do so means creating
> counter agents would be impossible. Yes, we can weaponise them but we
> just don't have the delivery systems for the use of them anyway.
How do you know all this? Where's the proof?
> e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no
> provacation.
*Cough* We just invaded Iraq.
> The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about anyone
> then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA
> (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much is
> fact.
Oh really? Then how come you knew just a few days ago? You were eer so sure back then.
We don't actually need to;
a)We've never used them illegally, as in decided we really didn't like some people and gassed them
b)We don't deny having them, and we have a proper command and control system in place for their use, in other words we don't just tell a major he can fire at will.
c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
d)None of our biological or chemical stocks are weaponised, and we cannot get rid of all our stocks because to do so means creating counter agents would be impossible. Yes, we can weaponise them but we just don't have the delivery systems for the use of them anyway.
e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no provacation.
Even if you extend the thought to America there is very little not known about their WMD's, primarily consisting of a mix of long range missiles launched from land, sea and air, and bombers, with the B2 Stealth Bomber and the F117 designated as the primary offensive force in any such use.
The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about anyone then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much is fact. They're threatening war if sanctions are imposed by the UN, but if they did that they face a UN coalition, possibly with China and Russia abstaining at worst, and they may find there is a real big difference to saying you can use nuclear weapons, and actually using them. Repositioned B2's are now in place the area in such a way that they can be airborne and away well before any strike on their base. Does N.Korea fancy it's chances against an aircraft no one has ever shot down ? Whatsmore it's feasable that the F22 Raptor has been deployed also, meaning any such B2 force would be near guaranteed to make it's way intact to the country.
Interesting times....
a)We've never used them illegally, as in decided we really didn't like some people and gassed them
b)We don't deny having them, and we have a proper command and control system in place for their use, in other words we don't just tell a major he can fire at will.
c)We're signatory to various treaties which agree our use of Nuclear Weapons is restricted to defensive and detterence use.
d)None of our biological or chemical stocks are weaponised, and we cannot get rid of all our stocks because to do so means creating counter agents would be impossible. Yes, we can weaponise them but we just don't have the delivery systems for the use of them anyway.
e)We don't make a habit of invading our neighbours with no provacation.
Even if you extend the thought to America there is very little not known about their WMD's, primarily consisting of a mix of long range missiles launched from land, sea and air, and bombers, with the B2 Stealth Bomber and the F117 designated as the primary offensive force in any such use.
The real threat now ? North Korea, you want to be worried about anyone then worry about them, partly because no one, not even the CIA (publicly)knows how much of their blustering is talk, and how much is fact. They're threatening war if sanctions are imposed by the UN, but if they did that they face a UN coalition, possibly with China and Russia abstaining at worst, and they may find there is a real big difference to saying you can use nuclear weapons, and actually using them. Repositioned B2's are now in place the area in such a way that they can be airborne and away well before any strike on their base. Does N.Korea fancy it's chances against an aircraft no one has ever shot down ? Whatsmore it's feasable that the F22 Raptor has been deployed also, meaning any such B2 force would be near guaranteed to make it's way intact to the country.
Interesting times....
I believe it would be a lot easier to try and find our own...
Page: