The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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/world/middle_east/2942978.stm
So Rumsfeld now says that Iraq may have destroyed the weapons before the invasi-..sorry..war.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't that kind of mean the war wasn't necessary?
I mean, their intel was so superb and accurate that they assured us "these weapons could be ready for use within hours" right?
Only, they couldn't find them.
Now they're saying they could have been destroyed before this all happened.
"It could take months to find these weapons" Rumsfeld warns.
So why wasn't the UN given months? Oh yeah, because these weapons were a threat and ready for immediate use.
Except they didnt use them.
CNN reports that Rumsfeld is confused by the lack of discover "He said he did not know why Iraq had not used chemical weapons against the invaders as Washington had predicted it would.
And he said the speed of the US advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, adding: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
And the world grew suspicious at the non-appearance and usage of these WOMD, so the reason for war changed.
It went from "WOMD, Saddam will kill you and everyone you love!" to "We're freeing these Iraqis"
Uh-huh, nice righteous reason there Dubya.
Except it wasn't about freeing these poor people (made worse by imposition of sanctions for over a decade and continual bombing runs since 1991 by US and British planes).
Subtle spin in the news changed the "Gulf War 2" from being about destroying WOMD to liberating an oppressed people, complete with repeated showings of a statue being toppled.
Dont let yourself be distracted for a single second about the original reason for war.
WOMD.
WOMD that haven't been produced once, despite all this intel we were told about before the war.
WOMD that were never used in the invasion.
WOMD that still haven't been discovered, with the "Oh but Iraq's a big country" excuse. Yeah? But you had all this intel before the invasion, you're telling me now you can't find them?
And now we have today's little chestnut that "they may have already been destroyed"
Are you that stupid (Bell excluded) that you'll swallow this horseshit excuse for invasion?
Rumsfeld is now "warning" Iran.
Which is odd, because Iran has long been a puppet state of the USA, ever since The CIA instigated a coup to depose former leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953.
CIA ousts Mossadeq and puts in a nice, US approved Shah.
They then arm, train and fund the Iranian military to wage war on Iraq.
Except The Ayatollah overthrows The Shah and returns a hardline Muslim rule to Iran.
CIA then install, arm and train Saddam Hussein. Giving him technological knowledge, WOMD, missiles and ballistic weaponry to fight against The Ayatollah.
Who then displays pro-US ideals and suddenly is their freind again.
So what happens?
Hussein is now the bad man.
Even a child can see the workings here. Arm A to fight B. Then arm B to fight A because A doesn't like you anymore.
USA invades Iraq to destroy WOMD (provided by the USA), except there are none. Doesn't matter because now it's about freeing civilians.
USA owns Iraq and now turns to Iran, formerly a close-ally and starts to eye them up.
As predicted with the Iraq invasion almost 2 years before it happened, I'd advise you to keep your eye on Iran. Because the USA will be in there soon, then they own that region completely. Saudi is basically USA with sand and that leaves very few anti-US regions.
And if anyone fancies reading about the CIA assisted coup of Iran in 1953, in case you think this is being made up, have a read:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Iraq was not a war about removing WOMD. It was an illegal invasion designed to solidify US interests in oil-rich nations.
Except they distract you with talk of "mass graves", which makes it appear like if you disagree you're evil.
Yeah?
So what about Mugabe? What about the mass graves of hacked to death civilians in Zimbabwe? He's invited to summit meetings in Paris, albeit with distaste.
No financial gain from bombing it to dust and then rebuilding using contracts awarded to solely US and UK companies (although the UK are losing out).
It's not about oil, it's about $$££ from rebuilding contracts, arms sales to neighbouring regions and defence budgets given "blank cheque" funding in this war against terror.
So Rumsfeld now says that Iraq may have destroyed the weapons before the invasi-..sorry..war.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't that kind of mean the war wasn't necessary?
I mean, their intel was so superb and accurate that they assured us "these weapons could be ready for use within hours" right?
Only, they couldn't find them.
Now they're saying they could have been destroyed before this all happened.
"It could take months to find these weapons" Rumsfeld warns.
So why wasn't the UN given months? Oh yeah, because these weapons were a threat and ready for immediate use.
Except they didnt use them.
CNN reports that Rumsfeld is confused by the lack of discover "He said he did not know why Iraq had not used chemical weapons against the invaders as Washington had predicted it would.
And he said the speed of the US advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, adding: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
And the world grew suspicious at the non-appearance and usage of these WOMD, so the reason for war changed.
It went from "WOMD, Saddam will kill you and everyone you love!" to "We're freeing these Iraqis"
Uh-huh, nice righteous reason there Dubya.
Except it wasn't about freeing these poor people (made worse by imposition of sanctions for over a decade and continual bombing runs since 1991 by US and British planes).
Subtle spin in the news changed the "Gulf War 2" from being about destroying WOMD to liberating an oppressed people, complete with repeated showings of a statue being toppled.
Dont let yourself be distracted for a single second about the original reason for war.
WOMD.
WOMD that haven't been produced once, despite all this intel we were told about before the war.
WOMD that were never used in the invasion.
WOMD that still haven't been discovered, with the "Oh but Iraq's a big country" excuse. Yeah? But you had all this intel before the invasion, you're telling me now you can't find them?
And now we have today's little chestnut that "they may have already been destroyed"
Are you that stupid (Bell excluded) that you'll swallow this horseshit excuse for invasion?
Rumsfeld is now "warning" Iran.
Which is odd, because Iran has long been a puppet state of the USA, ever since The CIA instigated a coup to depose former leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953.
CIA ousts Mossadeq and puts in a nice, US approved Shah.
They then arm, train and fund the Iranian military to wage war on Iraq.
Except The Ayatollah overthrows The Shah and returns a hardline Muslim rule to Iran.
CIA then install, arm and train Saddam Hussein. Giving him technological knowledge, WOMD, missiles and ballistic weaponry to fight against The Ayatollah.
Who then displays pro-US ideals and suddenly is their freind again.
So what happens?
Hussein is now the bad man.
Even a child can see the workings here. Arm A to fight B. Then arm B to fight A because A doesn't like you anymore.
USA invades Iraq to destroy WOMD (provided by the USA), except there are none. Doesn't matter because now it's about freeing civilians.
USA owns Iraq and now turns to Iran, formerly a close-ally and starts to eye them up.
As predicted with the Iraq invasion almost 2 years before it happened, I'd advise you to keep your eye on Iran. Because the USA will be in there soon, then they own that region completely. Saudi is basically USA with sand and that leaves very few anti-US regions.
And if anyone fancies reading about the CIA assisted coup of Iran in 1953, in case you think this is being made up, have a read:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Iraq was not a war about removing WOMD. It was an illegal invasion designed to solidify US interests in oil-rich nations.
Except they distract you with talk of "mass graves", which makes it appear like if you disagree you're evil.
Yeah?
So what about Mugabe? What about the mass graves of hacked to death civilians in Zimbabwe? He's invited to summit meetings in Paris, albeit with distaste.
No financial gain from bombing it to dust and then rebuilding using contracts awarded to solely US and UK companies (although the UK are losing out).
It's not about oil, it's about $$££ from rebuilding contracts, arms sales to neighbouring regions and defence budgets given "blank cheque" funding in this war against terror.
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> I must admit to being confused here.
> On the one hand, you promote Chomsky's "Deterrring
> Democracy" and applaud the way in which he casts a critical eye
> over America's handling and manipulation of the media in reporting
> stories...yet below in this thread you criticise myself and others for
> "blaming America and ignoring other areas"
Let me explain. Deterring Democracy is, for the most part, an indictment of successive American administrations actions towards other countries and how they have manipulated the justification for those actions. Which is true, and something I definitely agree on. His book stays on topic and does not digress from American actions much at all, if at all - it is several months since I read it so I may be wrong.
By contrast, the insinuation on many topics on this forum seems to be that America, in particular whoever holds the White House, is the root of all the world's problems and many happily act as if the sole wrong doers in the world wear a stars and stripes patch on their right shoulder.
What I hoped to point out in an earlier reply was that there is a lot more conflict and aggression going on that is equally deserving of criticism and discussion, but that the media rarely covers it - in Indonesia's case I'd hazard that no one would be too keen to see British made equipment engaged in the almost certain bombing of clear civilian areas. To my mind, the fact the criticism centres on the conflicts which get the air time suggests that America and the UK are just the easiest targets because many people can form assumptions based on what they see on TV. I'm not saying that everyone here does that, before I get a rabid Light bouncing up and down again, but some seem to.
> I'm not entirely sure how you can bemoan the attacking of America, yet
> be a fan of Chomsky?
> He is, although hardly a leftist liberal, one of the foremost voices
> in warning against the totalitarian methods employed by the US
> government in using the media to fool public opinions.
I've read just one of Chomsky's books and hope to get the others later this year, but I'd argue that just as totalitarian are nations where media coverage of certain things is not even allowed to be broadcast. Sure, all news footage, all reporting, no matter the source, is biased. I'm biased, you're biased, we all are and that's natural. I'm not saying that I applaud the way footage of things like the second Gulf War was shown, just that I'd be more worried by no media coverage at all. To a lot of people world events are what happens on the news, if something is not on the news then for all intents and purposes it never happened in many people's minds. Yes, I realise I'm generalising a lot, but I believe it to be true.
Finally, I'd say, from what I've read so far, that Chomsky is more warning against those in power in the US, and not the nation of America itself. He's not anti-american, anti-western etc as some may perceive him to be, in many ways, like so many who spoke out against Bush, they are truly American. Being a patriot to your nation has never been about being a "yes" person- agreeing with everything your leader does, but that is what it seems to have become now, in America, here, and elsewhere, and until more people - especially opposing politicians of the parties in power right now - are brave enough to question those in power, then the war on terror will never end, and things will never change.
Sorry if this is overly long, I tend to ramble on!
> I must admit to being confused here.
> On the one hand, you promote Chomsky's "Deterrring
> Democracy" and applaud the way in which he casts a critical eye
> over America's handling and manipulation of the media in reporting
> stories...yet below in this thread you criticise myself and others for
> "blaming America and ignoring other areas"
Let me explain. Deterring Democracy is, for the most part, an indictment of successive American administrations actions towards other countries and how they have manipulated the justification for those actions. Which is true, and something I definitely agree on. His book stays on topic and does not digress from American actions much at all, if at all - it is several months since I read it so I may be wrong.
By contrast, the insinuation on many topics on this forum seems to be that America, in particular whoever holds the White House, is the root of all the world's problems and many happily act as if the sole wrong doers in the world wear a stars and stripes patch on their right shoulder.
What I hoped to point out in an earlier reply was that there is a lot more conflict and aggression going on that is equally deserving of criticism and discussion, but that the media rarely covers it - in Indonesia's case I'd hazard that no one would be too keen to see British made equipment engaged in the almost certain bombing of clear civilian areas. To my mind, the fact the criticism centres on the conflicts which get the air time suggests that America and the UK are just the easiest targets because many people can form assumptions based on what they see on TV. I'm not saying that everyone here does that, before I get a rabid Light bouncing up and down again, but some seem to.
> I'm not entirely sure how you can bemoan the attacking of America, yet
> be a fan of Chomsky?
> He is, although hardly a leftist liberal, one of the foremost voices
> in warning against the totalitarian methods employed by the US
> government in using the media to fool public opinions.
I've read just one of Chomsky's books and hope to get the others later this year, but I'd argue that just as totalitarian are nations where media coverage of certain things is not even allowed to be broadcast. Sure, all news footage, all reporting, no matter the source, is biased. I'm biased, you're biased, we all are and that's natural. I'm not saying that I applaud the way footage of things like the second Gulf War was shown, just that I'd be more worried by no media coverage at all. To a lot of people world events are what happens on the news, if something is not on the news then for all intents and purposes it never happened in many people's minds. Yes, I realise I'm generalising a lot, but I believe it to be true.
Finally, I'd say, from what I've read so far, that Chomsky is more warning against those in power in the US, and not the nation of America itself. He's not anti-american, anti-western etc as some may perceive him to be, in many ways, like so many who spoke out against Bush, they are truly American. Being a patriot to your nation has never been about being a "yes" person- agreeing with everything your leader does, but that is what it seems to have become now, in America, here, and elsewhere, and until more people - especially opposing politicians of the parties in power right now - are brave enough to question those in power, then the war on terror will never end, and things will never change.
Sorry if this is overly long, I tend to ramble on!
Someone should save this topic. It's classic Belldandy. "Goodbye cruel world, I'm leaving forever", and back within the month. A new personal best?
HALO Fan wrote:
> All detail conflicts since World War Two, and how the actions, largely
> of the West, in particular America, haven't always been for entirely
> truthful reasons or what they appear to be, though Shawcross' is about
> the United Nations and it's (attempt) to work.
--
I must admit to being confused here.
On the one hand, you promote Chomsky's "Deterrring Democracy" and applaud the way in which he casts a critical eye over America's handling and manipulation of the media in reporting stories...yet below in this thread you criticise myself and others for "blaming America and ignoring other areas"
I'm not entirely sure how you can bemoan the attacking of America, yet be a fan of Chomsky?
He is, although hardly a leftist liberal, one of the foremost voices in warning against the totalitarian methods employed by the US government in using the media to fool public opinions.
> All detail conflicts since World War Two, and how the actions, largely
> of the West, in particular America, haven't always been for entirely
> truthful reasons or what they appear to be, though Shawcross' is about
> the United Nations and it's (attempt) to work.
--
I must admit to being confused here.
On the one hand, you promote Chomsky's "Deterrring Democracy" and applaud the way in which he casts a critical eye over America's handling and manipulation of the media in reporting stories...yet below in this thread you criticise myself and others for "blaming America and ignoring other areas"
I'm not entirely sure how you can bemoan the attacking of America, yet be a fan of Chomsky?
He is, although hardly a leftist liberal, one of the foremost voices in warning against the totalitarian methods employed by the US government in using the media to fool public opinions.
Unless they put them all together ina field
Kept one and lobbed it at the field
Thus, destroying all weapons and errrr avoiding a war.
haha
Kept one and lobbed it at the field
Thus, destroying all weapons and errrr avoiding a war.
haha
If we see anyone in figure-hugging lycra wandering around Iraq, then we know you're onto something.
I reckon that Iraq used it's WOMD to destroy all evidence of possessing WOMD, thus setting up a paradox which will cause the space-time continuum to slowly disolve exposing us to the horrors that await us beyond the fabric of the warp.
And yet you clever people with your fancy dan words and big sentences come here lording it up and supporting them.
You make me sick.
And yet you clever people with your fancy dan words and big sentences come here lording it up and supporting them.
You make me sick.
"How can I take these points seriously? They call me retarded, it is they who are retarded. Retarded. These points you keep talking about, where are they? You can see they are not here. I tell you the truth and ask you look at the truth. Clearly these points are being crushed under our mighty wordswords. Infidel Forum evil midgets"
Heh.
Incidentally Goatboy, what does he mean when he says we take it all so seriously?
Cos, y'know, I may be wrong but I thought it was him who ran off crying like a baby because we didn't take what he said seriously enough...
Incidentally Goatboy, what does he mean when he says we take it all so seriously?
Cos, y'know, I may be wrong but I thought it was him who ran off crying like a baby because we didn't take what he said seriously enough...
"These topics do not exist. They are committing suicide at the gates of Life Forum. How can they be querying me when they are clearly killing themselves? I do not know where these points are, they do not exist. We will triumph over these forum pigdogs"
Belldandy wrote:
> Seems to me like you've
> been reduced to throwing snide comments around and little else,
How would you know dear boy? You've been away from the forum altogether, haven't you?
Haven't you?
Still, I guess it must have been another Light who posted the thread about Rape laws...
Ah Bell, I've missed your posts with their total lack of relation to fact...
> Seems to me like you've
> been reduced to throwing snide comments around and little else,
How would you know dear boy? You've been away from the forum altogether, haven't you?
Haven't you?
Still, I guess it must have been another Light who posted the thread about Rape laws...
Ah Bell, I've missed your posts with their total lack of relation to fact...
Page: