The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok, it's been a while since there has been any kind of violence in Iraq but I can't help but have a few questions. Is the war officially over or are the Americans still bombing certain parts of Iraq? Could this war have been avoided if we had just listened to anti war protestors? And what are we going to do about the AMERICAN threat?
America seems to have taken it upon themselves to police the world as if it is their own back yard. They suffered a huge tragedy on September 11th but does that really give them the right to seek vengeance like some kind of god like force that can do whatever it wishes? They went through the UN to begin with but in the end they felt that they were bigger than them. The UN has become weak and scared of America and we shouldn't let that happen.
The UK, once the most powerful empire in the world is now cowering at the feet of America because they don't want to get on their bad side. The UK is afraid of losing an ally and the UN is afraid of losing a powerful member. The world has to get its act together and stop America before they take the next step forward and start dictating how we should run our countries.
If Britain had joined with France, Germany and all the other Anti war countries and the UN had only been stronger then we would most likely be at war with America right now. But once again we have bowed at America’s feet and let them do as they please. France wouldn't get away with half the stuff America gets away with and frankly neither would the UK.
I think that we need a new leader. We need a new Prime Minister who is not afraid to go against the crowd, we need one that will stand up for the UK, we need a leader who will listen to the people and most of all we need a leader who will work to make allies out with of America if the situation arises.
Although Saddam was doing terrible, terrible things it is hardly our place to attack them and it is not the place of America to bomb civilians in Iraq because terrorists "Might" be there. We used far to many soldiers and far to many weapons. If we had just sent Saddam an ultimatum and then gone to war with troops alone the casualty lists would have been cut dramatically.
Of course these are just my views but if anyone has some views of their own or (god forbid) agrees with me then post it here.
America seems to have taken it upon themselves to police the world as if it is their own back yard. They suffered a huge tragedy on September 11th but does that really give them the right to seek vengeance like some kind of god like force that can do whatever it wishes? They went through the UN to begin with but in the end they felt that they were bigger than them. The UN has become weak and scared of America and we shouldn't let that happen.
The UK, once the most powerful empire in the world is now cowering at the feet of America because they don't want to get on their bad side. The UK is afraid of losing an ally and the UN is afraid of losing a powerful member. The world has to get its act together and stop America before they take the next step forward and start dictating how we should run our countries.
If Britain had joined with France, Germany and all the other Anti war countries and the UN had only been stronger then we would most likely be at war with America right now. But once again we have bowed at America’s feet and let them do as they please. France wouldn't get away with half the stuff America gets away with and frankly neither would the UK.
I think that we need a new leader. We need a new Prime Minister who is not afraid to go against the crowd, we need one that will stand up for the UK, we need a leader who will listen to the people and most of all we need a leader who will work to make allies out with of America if the situation arises.
Although Saddam was doing terrible, terrible things it is hardly our place to attack them and it is not the place of America to bomb civilians in Iraq because terrorists "Might" be there. We used far to many soldiers and far to many weapons. If we had just sent Saddam an ultimatum and then gone to war with troops alone the casualty lists would have been cut dramatically.
Of course these are just my views but if anyone has some views of their own or (god forbid) agrees with me then post it here.
Ok, it's been a while since there has been any kind of violence in Iraq but I can't help but have a few questions. Is the war officially over or are the Americans still bombing certain parts of Iraq? Could this war have been avoided if we had just listened to anti war protestors? And what are we going to do about the AMERICAN threat?
America seems to have taken it upon themselves to police the world as if it is their own back yard. They suffered a huge tragedy on September 11th but does that really give them the right to seek vengeance like some kind of god like force that can do whatever it wishes? They went through the UN to begin with but in the end they felt that they were bigger than them. The UN has become weak and scared of America and we shouldn't let that happen.
The UK, once the most powerful empire in the world is now cowering at the feet of America because they don't want to get on their bad side. The UK is afraid of losing an ally and the UN is afraid of losing a powerful member. The world has to get its act together and stop America before they take the next step forward and start dictating how we should run our countries.
If Britain had joined with France, Germany and all the other Anti war countries and the UN had only been stronger then we would most likely be at war with America right now. But once again we have bowed at America’s feet and let them do as they please. France wouldn't get away with half the stuff America gets away with and frankly neither would the UK.
I think that we need a new leader. We need a new Prime Minister who is not afraid to go against the crowd, we need one that will stand up for the UK, we need a leader who will listen to the people and most of all we need a leader who will work to make allies out with of America if the situation arises.
Although Saddam was doing terrible, terrible things it is hardly our place to attack them and it is not the place of America to bomb civilians in Iraq because terrorists "Might" be there. We used far to many soldiers and far to many weapons. If we had just sent Saddam an ultimatum and then gone to war with troops alone the casualty lists would have been cut dramatically.
Of course these are just my views but if anyone has some views of their own or (god forbid) agrees with me then post it here.
America seems to have taken it upon themselves to police the world as if it is their own back yard. They suffered a huge tragedy on September 11th but does that really give them the right to seek vengeance like some kind of god like force that can do whatever it wishes? They went through the UN to begin with but in the end they felt that they were bigger than them. The UN has become weak and scared of America and we shouldn't let that happen.
The UK, once the most powerful empire in the world is now cowering at the feet of America because they don't want to get on their bad side. The UK is afraid of losing an ally and the UN is afraid of losing a powerful member. The world has to get its act together and stop America before they take the next step forward and start dictating how we should run our countries.
If Britain had joined with France, Germany and all the other Anti war countries and the UN had only been stronger then we would most likely be at war with America right now. But once again we have bowed at America’s feet and let them do as they please. France wouldn't get away with half the stuff America gets away with and frankly neither would the UK.
I think that we need a new leader. We need a new Prime Minister who is not afraid to go against the crowd, we need one that will stand up for the UK, we need a leader who will listen to the people and most of all we need a leader who will work to make allies out with of America if the situation arises.
Although Saddam was doing terrible, terrible things it is hardly our place to attack them and it is not the place of America to bomb civilians in Iraq because terrorists "Might" be there. We used far to many soldiers and far to many weapons. If we had just sent Saddam an ultimatum and then gone to war with troops alone the casualty lists would have been cut dramatically.
Of course these are just my views but if anyone has some views of their own or (god forbid) agrees with me then post it here.
I can't be bothered to discuss a lot of the factless assumptions and inacuracies here. Instead I'll challenge anyone to answer this;
Who will police the world ? Everyone ? No one ? In theory it is the United Nation's task to preserve the peace, but I don't think anyone here, whatever their views on Iraq et al, would argue that the UN has done that. Yes, the veto system has been abused by just about every member of the council. Yes, the rotating members of the council have also, when events dictated, abused that position to bargain for certain things from security council members. That this has happened is as much a testament to the failure of the UN as to the countries involved.
But the question remains, who will police the world ? Europe can complain all it likes, but the fact is that without American support we'd more than likely be talking german or russian by now. Europe's the paper tiger. The great NATO is a paper tiger because it is next to useless without American forces.
Look at it like this, if September 11th had taken place in France, England, Madrid, Berlin, then the government of that place would have limited options as to what to do. That government could have had the exact location of Bin Laden, guaranteed 100% accurate, and they would not have had any means to strike into Afghanistan. You could argue that the chances of such an attack on a European country are slim, because, and this is a simplistic argument, "terrorists hate America and not us". Sorry to break the illusions but Bin Laden's doctrine makes no distinction, we're all infidels. The best military in Europe is the United Kingdom's, simply because a lot of the power we exert is easily hidden by use of Special Forces and intelligence operations. I suspect that revealed operations like the planned one to kill Gadafi, and the secret ones in Ireland are just the tip of the iceberg.
That's another thing to consider when criticising past and present American actions, what is our own history ? This often is not the history you may have done in GCSE, or even A Level, but the less principled, often illegal and immoral, actions that this country has done in the past, and largely forgotten. Sure, it doesn't mean we cannot criticise but it does mean we need to stop acting like certain countries are the source of all that is wrong in the world today. Iraq, for instance. People say Saddam was installed by the West, hence America is to blame. Well we ourselves we're right there as well, as were the French. We sold them weapons, and chemicals. Other did too, and others supplied Iran. In many respects America has had the misfortune to be a super power in the media age.
And, even if anyone read this and probably disagrees, I think it's insulting to talk of the "American Threat". Who are the "Americans" ? All of them, some of them, who ? There was plenty of anti-war opposition in the USA. Surely it's the Bush Threat, seeing as it is his doctrine which led to this. More to the point, offer alternatives. It's fine to say someone/something is wrong, but how else could they have acted. I, for one, would have been more inclined to listen to anti-war supporters if they'd had a viable alternative.
Sure "No War", but tell me what else, when 12 years of diplomacy only have the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Saddam's gigantic bank balance, heavy military spending, WMD research (there is documentary evidence now, just not the end product), and the harbouring of terrorists and inability to ct against them, is all we have to show for it.
Who will police the world ? Everyone ? No one ? In theory it is the United Nation's task to preserve the peace, but I don't think anyone here, whatever their views on Iraq et al, would argue that the UN has done that. Yes, the veto system has been abused by just about every member of the council. Yes, the rotating members of the council have also, when events dictated, abused that position to bargain for certain things from security council members. That this has happened is as much a testament to the failure of the UN as to the countries involved.
But the question remains, who will police the world ? Europe can complain all it likes, but the fact is that without American support we'd more than likely be talking german or russian by now. Europe's the paper tiger. The great NATO is a paper tiger because it is next to useless without American forces.
Look at it like this, if September 11th had taken place in France, England, Madrid, Berlin, then the government of that place would have limited options as to what to do. That government could have had the exact location of Bin Laden, guaranteed 100% accurate, and they would not have had any means to strike into Afghanistan. You could argue that the chances of such an attack on a European country are slim, because, and this is a simplistic argument, "terrorists hate America and not us". Sorry to break the illusions but Bin Laden's doctrine makes no distinction, we're all infidels. The best military in Europe is the United Kingdom's, simply because a lot of the power we exert is easily hidden by use of Special Forces and intelligence operations. I suspect that revealed operations like the planned one to kill Gadafi, and the secret ones in Ireland are just the tip of the iceberg.
That's another thing to consider when criticising past and present American actions, what is our own history ? This often is not the history you may have done in GCSE, or even A Level, but the less principled, often illegal and immoral, actions that this country has done in the past, and largely forgotten. Sure, it doesn't mean we cannot criticise but it does mean we need to stop acting like certain countries are the source of all that is wrong in the world today. Iraq, for instance. People say Saddam was installed by the West, hence America is to blame. Well we ourselves we're right there as well, as were the French. We sold them weapons, and chemicals. Other did too, and others supplied Iran. In many respects America has had the misfortune to be a super power in the media age.
And, even if anyone read this and probably disagrees, I think it's insulting to talk of the "American Threat". Who are the "Americans" ? All of them, some of them, who ? There was plenty of anti-war opposition in the USA. Surely it's the Bush Threat, seeing as it is his doctrine which led to this. More to the point, offer alternatives. It's fine to say someone/something is wrong, but how else could they have acted. I, for one, would have been more inclined to listen to anti-war supporters if they'd had a viable alternative.
Sure "No War", but tell me what else, when 12 years of diplomacy only have the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Saddam's gigantic bank balance, heavy military spending, WMD research (there is documentary evidence now, just not the end product), and the harbouring of terrorists and inability to ct against them, is all we have to show for it.
Star Fury wrote:
> I can't be bothered to discuss a lot of the factless assumptions and
> inacuracies here.
The sheer hypocrisy of this statement actually left me breathless.
But for once I'm not here to pick a fight with you; your blind pro-Americanism for the sake of it is no more or less blinkered and unrealistic than blind anti-Americanism for the sake of it.
I would agree that American imperialism is a threat to world stability. But to start viewing that in terms of "us and them" is a sure way to guarantee further defensiveness and unilateralism from the corrupt and illegally elected US government (and in making that accurate statement, I at least have facts to back me up). This US Government does not represent the will of the majority of the American people. Far better to try and find ways of ensuring that next US (and UK, French...any other government you care to name in fact) is more representative.
> I can't be bothered to discuss a lot of the factless assumptions and
> inacuracies here.
The sheer hypocrisy of this statement actually left me breathless.
But for once I'm not here to pick a fight with you; your blind pro-Americanism for the sake of it is no more or less blinkered and unrealistic than blind anti-Americanism for the sake of it.
I would agree that American imperialism is a threat to world stability. But to start viewing that in terms of "us and them" is a sure way to guarantee further defensiveness and unilateralism from the corrupt and illegally elected US government (and in making that accurate statement, I at least have facts to back me up). This US Government does not represent the will of the majority of the American people. Far better to try and find ways of ensuring that next US (and UK, French...any other government you care to name in fact) is more representative.
Ok who are you quoting in your post? You keep quoting things that I haven't said and the stuff I have said are just generalisations like "American". When I said that I obvioulsy didn't mean Mr and Mrs at 78 Woodrow Lane, Tampa, Florida. Anyway I respect your opinion but you kind of strayed from the point by going into past actions etc The point is I want things to change in the future regardless of the past. You seemed to agree with almost all my points though about the UN and others being weak and abused but you didn't seem to care that much. Oh well, I guess we can agree to disagree.
P.s. my last post was for Star just so there's no confusion Light :D
Okay, your title includes "The American Threat", hence I have quoted you.
You say it is not America's place to bomb civilians, when no missions actually targetted civilians in the first place.
You say "if we had sent Saddam an ultimatum" then the war would have gone better. Firstly, it went blindingly well, secondly after 12 years and a clear ultimatum from America 3 months prior to war, I'd love to see how that there was no ultimatum.
You say if we had joined France, Russia et al "we would almost certainly be at war with America right now", which is absolutely crap, and even Light will probably agree with that.
And that's just the choice selection.....
And on another note, go read about our previous Empire, and be glad it's finished because we established it by stealing, war, slavery and suffering.
And like Light says, if we want change, in any country, then the solution is to elect those who will bring real change - and if anyone here suggests the BNP I think you're a certified moron - not words, but real change for the better. I think the percentage for voting is somewhere in the high 40's% in this country. and similar in the USA, which means about half of both nations didn't give a toss who was in power. Yes, Bush made use of the intricacies of America's system and possibly from some other events, but a sizeable mass of people still voted him in, knowing who and what he was. Same with Blair, most people voted him in knowing what he was and what he stood for.
You say it is not America's place to bomb civilians, when no missions actually targetted civilians in the first place.
You say "if we had sent Saddam an ultimatum" then the war would have gone better. Firstly, it went blindingly well, secondly after 12 years and a clear ultimatum from America 3 months prior to war, I'd love to see how that there was no ultimatum.
You say if we had joined France, Russia et al "we would almost certainly be at war with America right now", which is absolutely crap, and even Light will probably agree with that.
And that's just the choice selection.....
And on another note, go read about our previous Empire, and be glad it's finished because we established it by stealing, war, slavery and suffering.
And like Light says, if we want change, in any country, then the solution is to elect those who will bring real change - and if anyone here suggests the BNP I think you're a certified moron - not words, but real change for the better. I think the percentage for voting is somewhere in the high 40's% in this country. and similar in the USA, which means about half of both nations didn't give a toss who was in power. Yes, Bush made use of the intricacies of America's system and possibly from some other events, but a sizeable mass of people still voted him in, knowing who and what he was. Same with Blair, most people voted him in knowing what he was and what he stood for.
Star Fury wrote:
> Okay, your title includes "The American Threat", hence I
> have quoted you.
It's just a title so any context it has is given by you which i don't appreciate.
> You say it is not America's place to bomb civilians, when no missions
> actually targetted civilians in the first place.
Bombing Iraq towns and citys isn't the same as targetting civillians? Why don't you ask the boy who had his two arms blown of by American missile fire if he thinks the americans target the civillian population in the futile hope of killing terrorists which have obviously left Iraq.
> You say "if we had sent Saddam an ultimatum" then the war
> would have gone better. Firstly, it went blindingly well, secondly
> after 12 years and a clear ultimatum from America 3 months prior to
> war, I'd love to see how that there was no ultimatum.
That wasn't a proper ultimatum though. America was going to go to war with Iraq qether they agreed to it or not. If they agreed they'd send thousands and thousands of troops through Iraq in a gigantic invasion force that would eventually lead to war anyway. If it was a true ultimatum then they should have been able to avoid the war.
> You say if we had joined France, Russia et al "we would almost
> certainly be at war with America right now", which is absolutely
> crap, and even Light will probably agree with that.
Considering the facts that the UN, France, Russia etc are against the war it is quite possible. You can't simply declare yourself a global police force that can do whatever it wants. The UN is there for a reason and if people weren't so afraid of America then we would attack them as one almighty force and win. However I think America knows that we could do that and that is why it has befriended the UK.
> And on another note, go read about our previous Empire, and be glad
> it's finished because we established it by stealing, war, slavery and
> suffering.
All of which was acceptable at the time but incase you haven't realised we have evolved as a species and that is no longer acceptable. Thus we are no longer such a great empire.
> Same with Blair, most
> people voted him in knowing what he was and what he stood for.
True but as you said not many people voted and the majority of the people who voted are around 40 years old who usually aren't interested in change.
> Okay, your title includes "The American Threat", hence I
> have quoted you.
It's just a title so any context it has is given by you which i don't appreciate.
> You say it is not America's place to bomb civilians, when no missions
> actually targetted civilians in the first place.
Bombing Iraq towns and citys isn't the same as targetting civillians? Why don't you ask the boy who had his two arms blown of by American missile fire if he thinks the americans target the civillian population in the futile hope of killing terrorists which have obviously left Iraq.
> You say "if we had sent Saddam an ultimatum" then the war
> would have gone better. Firstly, it went blindingly well, secondly
> after 12 years and a clear ultimatum from America 3 months prior to
> war, I'd love to see how that there was no ultimatum.
That wasn't a proper ultimatum though. America was going to go to war with Iraq qether they agreed to it or not. If they agreed they'd send thousands and thousands of troops through Iraq in a gigantic invasion force that would eventually lead to war anyway. If it was a true ultimatum then they should have been able to avoid the war.
> You say if we had joined France, Russia et al "we would almost
> certainly be at war with America right now", which is absolutely
> crap, and even Light will probably agree with that.
Considering the facts that the UN, France, Russia etc are against the war it is quite possible. You can't simply declare yourself a global police force that can do whatever it wants. The UN is there for a reason and if people weren't so afraid of America then we would attack them as one almighty force and win. However I think America knows that we could do that and that is why it has befriended the UK.
> And on another note, go read about our previous Empire, and be glad
> it's finished because we established it by stealing, war, slavery and
> suffering.
All of which was acceptable at the time but incase you haven't realised we have evolved as a species and that is no longer acceptable. Thus we are no longer such a great empire.
> Same with Blair, most
> people voted him in knowing what he was and what he stood for.
True but as you said not many people voted and the majority of the people who voted are around 40 years old who usually aren't interested in change.
Cubist wrote:
> It's just a title so any context it has is given by you which i don't
> appreciate.
Okay, anyone else reading this ? Pray tell what other context the words "American Threat" can have other to imply that the Americans are a threat as a whole ? Exactly...
> Bombing Iraq towns and citys isn't the same as targetting civillians?
> Why don't you ask the boy who had his two arms blown of by American
> missile fire if he thinks the americans target the civillian
> population in the futile hope of killing terrorists which have
> obviously left Iraq.
And whilst you're they why not ask the tens of thousands of Iraqi's who died from 25 years of Saddam reign of terror, oh you can't, they're dead. But who care when we've got that boy eh ? The poor kid's been used by some to show how kind the coalition is, flying him out for help, and by others like you for whom he's a convenient example of a civilian casualty. I note you agree that there were terrorists in Iraq though, which in itself undermines your argument against a war, for one of the reasons of the war was that Iraq harboured terrorists.....
> That wasn't a proper ultimatum though. America was going to go to war
> with Iraq qether they agreed to it or not. If they agreed they'd send
> thousands and thousands of troops through Iraq in a gigantic invasion
> force that would eventually lead to war anyway. If it was a true
> ultimatum then they should have been able to avoid the war.
Erm what on earth do you expect an ultimatum to be. Colin Poweel addressed the UN endless times with the warnings to Iraq, so did Bush and Blair, and countless others. Change the regime, destroy and stop pursuing WMD, surrender and stop harbouring terrorists, full unhindered access to all suspected sites. Pretty simple.
> Considering the facts that the UN, France, Russia etc are against the
> war it is quite possible. You can't simply declare yourself a global
> police force that can do whatever it wants. The UN is there for a
> reason and if people weren't so afraid of America then we would attack
> them as one almighty force and win. However I think America knows that
> we could do that and that is why it has befriended the UK.
You got one thing right, the UN is there for a reason - international economic bargaining. I'm not even going to take the rest of your stupid comments seriously because if you seriously think that nations would gang up on America over a small middle eastern country.... and if you think, in some bizarre universe, that Europe could take America then you know hardly anything. Want to know whose forces are the mainstay of NATO ? Oh, look, America.
America has not suddenly befriended us, it goes a long way back but was really cemented in the Second World War, and it's not a one way exchange all the time either, America provided critical intelligence and supplie to us during the Falklands war, notably the new STINGER, and intel on the location of French built Exocet missiles.
> It's just a title so any context it has is given by you which i don't
> appreciate.
Okay, anyone else reading this ? Pray tell what other context the words "American Threat" can have other to imply that the Americans are a threat as a whole ? Exactly...
> Bombing Iraq towns and citys isn't the same as targetting civillians?
> Why don't you ask the boy who had his two arms blown of by American
> missile fire if he thinks the americans target the civillian
> population in the futile hope of killing terrorists which have
> obviously left Iraq.
And whilst you're they why not ask the tens of thousands of Iraqi's who died from 25 years of Saddam reign of terror, oh you can't, they're dead. But who care when we've got that boy eh ? The poor kid's been used by some to show how kind the coalition is, flying him out for help, and by others like you for whom he's a convenient example of a civilian casualty. I note you agree that there were terrorists in Iraq though, which in itself undermines your argument against a war, for one of the reasons of the war was that Iraq harboured terrorists.....
> That wasn't a proper ultimatum though. America was going to go to war
> with Iraq qether they agreed to it or not. If they agreed they'd send
> thousands and thousands of troops through Iraq in a gigantic invasion
> force that would eventually lead to war anyway. If it was a true
> ultimatum then they should have been able to avoid the war.
Erm what on earth do you expect an ultimatum to be. Colin Poweel addressed the UN endless times with the warnings to Iraq, so did Bush and Blair, and countless others. Change the regime, destroy and stop pursuing WMD, surrender and stop harbouring terrorists, full unhindered access to all suspected sites. Pretty simple.
> Considering the facts that the UN, France, Russia etc are against the
> war it is quite possible. You can't simply declare yourself a global
> police force that can do whatever it wants. The UN is there for a
> reason and if people weren't so afraid of America then we would attack
> them as one almighty force and win. However I think America knows that
> we could do that and that is why it has befriended the UK.
You got one thing right, the UN is there for a reason - international economic bargaining. I'm not even going to take the rest of your stupid comments seriously because if you seriously think that nations would gang up on America over a small middle eastern country.... and if you think, in some bizarre universe, that Europe could take America then you know hardly anything. Want to know whose forces are the mainstay of NATO ? Oh, look, America.
America has not suddenly befriended us, it goes a long way back but was really cemented in the Second World War, and it's not a one way exchange all the time either, America provided critical intelligence and supplie to us during the Falklands war, notably the new STINGER, and intel on the location of French built Exocet missiles.