The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
Belldandy?
Belldandy?
Page:
SCUD launcher
I wish I could type...
I wish I could type...
The Iraqi scus missile launcher comprises of a camel with a missile in it's mouth, and a stick with which to whack it's love spuds. That is the extent of Iraqi technology.
I think the plot went something like this...
"Saddam, you are Evil and must disarm all your weapons of mass destruction, or face war"
"We don't have anything to disarm. We'll grant your weapons inspectors unlimited access to prove it."
(some time later)
"Our UN inspectors have seen no evidence of any WoMD existing, but more importantly, we have not seen any evidence of your disarming them. Therefore we must declare war on you."
I think the plot went something like this...
"Saddam, you are Evil and must disarm all your weapons of mass destruction, or face war"
"We don't have anything to disarm. We'll grant your weapons inspectors unlimited access to prove it."
(some time later)
"Our UN inspectors have seen no evidence of any WoMD existing, but more importantly, we have not seen any evidence of your disarming them. Therefore we must declare war on you."
Well considering they were so sure of these weapons existing before the war, you'd think they'd have some idea of where they are after it, wouldn't you?
Unless of course, these numerous contradicting sources were wrong. But how could an American student be wrong about that? Surely it cannot happen.
Unless of course, these numerous contradicting sources were wrong. But how could an American student be wrong about that? Surely it cannot happen.
Okay, my response would be this.
Iraq is a big country, in which to find the components of a WMD program. Capturing people involved with it will not give the evidence and leads needed to find it easily as they know they are free from various crimes if there is no evidence of them being done.
Blair believes they are there, Bush believes they are there. That's good enough for me and I'm happy to wait for the inevitable evidence to be uncovered, at which point the sceptics will undoubtedly have yet another criticism to start whining about.
What next, coalition armoured forces destroyed the road infrastructure with tank treads so as to provide contracts to road repair companies in the West ?
Or, the whole war was really about getting a western base in the middle east.
so many reasons when people are paranoid of the world's remaining super power....some days I wish Russia had won the Cold War...
Iraq is a big country, in which to find the components of a WMD program. Capturing people involved with it will not give the evidence and leads needed to find it easily as they know they are free from various crimes if there is no evidence of them being done.
Blair believes they are there, Bush believes they are there. That's good enough for me and I'm happy to wait for the inevitable evidence to be uncovered, at which point the sceptics will undoubtedly have yet another criticism to start whining about.
What next, coalition armoured forces destroyed the road infrastructure with tank treads so as to provide contracts to road repair companies in the West ?
Or, the whole war was really about getting a western base in the middle east.
so many reasons when people are paranoid of the world's remaining super power....some days I wish Russia had won the Cold War...
Belldandy wrote:
> Of course if Vanity Fair can edit transcripts then so can the Guardian.
But it doesn't mean they will - and as there were no transcripts given in the article, how can they have edited it? Also I don't see how one publication's reputation or actions affects that of another.
My point with this topic was that it shows that even the people telling us about these WMD were uncertain about it, and as you were one of the biggest supporters of the war on these forums, I was interested to hear what your response would be. So that's why I addressed it specifically to you.
> Of course if Vanity Fair can edit transcripts then so can the Guardian.
But it doesn't mean they will - and as there were no transcripts given in the article, how can they have edited it? Also I don't see how one publication's reputation or actions affects that of another.
My point with this topic was that it shows that even the people telling us about these WMD were uncertain about it, and as you were one of the biggest supporters of the war on these forums, I was interested to hear what your response would be. So that's why I addressed it specifically to you.
I did read it. There is a link. I'd say that if those transcripts your link talks about exist, then they're part of a security net the two men have laid for themselves to cover their own backs. Of course if Vanity Fair can edit transcripts then so can the Guardian.
Interestingly, one speech to come out of the G8 meetings today warned N.Korea to cease it's nuclear program, and Iran not to further pursue one....and Putin was one of those involved this time.
I tell ya, one way or another both Iran and Syria will see changes in the near future, one way or another.
Interestingly, one speech to come out of the G8 meetings today warned N.Korea to cease it's nuclear program, and Iran not to further pursue one....and Putin was one of those involved this time.
I tell ya, one way or another both Iran and Syria will see changes in the near future, one way or another.
Why? I don't see what relevance one journal has to another. Please read the full article I linked to - it's not misleading, it's saying it full on and without hesitation.
Blank wrote:
> From reading the article from that link it is obvious one of two
> things are true:
>
> 1) You didn't read the article I posted properly.
>
> 2) You assumed you would win the argument because I wouldn't read your
> link.
>
> Probably both. The main point I was trying to make was not that WMD
> were the only reason, but that the evidence that they had to show that
> these WMD existed was extremely dodgy, with often one source
> contradicting another. The link you gave doesn't affect what I've said
> one bit.
To quote:
"Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA.
He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said."
Hence the link I provided is linked to this, if Vanity Fair can publish misleading information on the subject, then the Guardian certainly can...
> From reading the article from that link it is obvious one of two
> things are true:
>
> 1) You didn't read the article I posted properly.
>
> 2) You assumed you would win the argument because I wouldn't read your
> link.
>
> Probably both. The main point I was trying to make was not that WMD
> were the only reason, but that the evidence that they had to show that
> these WMD existed was extremely dodgy, with often one source
> contradicting another. The link you gave doesn't affect what I've said
> one bit.
To quote:
"Mr Wolfowitz set up the Pentagon's office of special plans to counter what he and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, considered inadequate - and unwelcome - intelligence from the CIA.
He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said."
Hence the link I provided is linked to this, if Vanity Fair can publish misleading information on the subject, then the Guardian certainly can...
Belldandy wrote:
> bl£eding
Bleeding?
Why?
> bl£eding
Bleeding?
Why?
From reading the article from that link it is obvious one of two things are true:
1) You didn't read the article I posted properly.
2) You assumed you would win the argument because I wouldn't read your link.
Probably both. The main point I was trying to make was not that WMD were the only reason, but that the evidence that they had to show that these WMD existed was extremely dodgy, with often one source contradicting another. The link you gave doesn't affect what I've said one bit.
1) You didn't read the article I posted properly.
2) You assumed you would win the argument because I wouldn't read your link.
Probably both. The main point I was trying to make was not that WMD were the only reason, but that the evidence that they had to show that these WMD existed was extremely dodgy, with often one source contradicting another. The link you gave doesn't affect what I've said one bit.
Page: