The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
Belldandy?
Belldandy?
Yes ?
So what ? End of the day we blew into Iraq and kicked out a madman and his guys along with him.
Even if there is no WMD, the whole fuss over it has been kickstarted by the Anti-war lobby who, in the face of the bl£eding obvious - that liberating the Iraqi people could only be done by force - are now desperate for a new route to criticise the whole campaign because they look rather stupid criticising the invasion now so many Iraqi's are glad Saddam was gone. Ever since the statues toppled they've looked for something, and now they have it.
And you know what ? Not many care. They couldn't stop a war with their criticism and campaigning, and they won't stop the rebuilding of Iraq either.
Kudos to Stop The War Coalition whose "End the occupation" slogan is about as well thought out as the average post on here - I'm sure the ideal thing to do would be for everyone to withdraw from Iraq now and let a repeat of 1991 happen....'cause that's what the ever desperate Stop The War wants now...
So what ? End of the day we blew into Iraq and kicked out a madman and his guys along with him.
Even if there is no WMD, the whole fuss over it has been kickstarted by the Anti-war lobby who, in the face of the bl£eding obvious - that liberating the Iraqi people could only be done by force - are now desperate for a new route to criticise the whole campaign because they look rather stupid criticising the invasion now so many Iraqi's are glad Saddam was gone. Ever since the statues toppled they've looked for something, and now they have it.
And you know what ? Not many care. They couldn't stop a war with their criticism and campaigning, and they won't stop the rebuilding of Iraq either.
Kudos to Stop The War Coalition whose "End the occupation" slogan is about as well thought out as the average post on here - I'm sure the ideal thing to do would be for everyone to withdraw from Iraq now and let a repeat of 1991 happen....'cause that's what the ever desperate Stop The War wants now...
Belldandy wrote:
> Even if there is no WMD, the whole fuss over it has been kickstarted
> by the Anti-war lobby who, in the face of the bl£eding obvious -
> that liberating the Iraqi people could only be done by force - are now
> desperate for a new route to criticise the whole campaign because they
> look rather stupid criticising the invasion now so many Iraqi's are
> glad Saddam was gone. Ever since the statues toppled they've looked
> for something, and now they have it.
The whole fuss about WMD kickstarted by the anti-war lobby? The reason we went to war in the first place was because Iraq posed a real terrorist threat to the US and UK, with chemical and biological weapons. A few days into the war and it was "Our main objective is to free the Iraqi citizens". Now it's revealed that they even knew it was bullshite all along.
They needed to relate the war to us so that we would support it - once they'd done that they dropped it. But what makes me wonder is that if the real objective was to free the Iraqis, why the hell was it done? You really think Bush gives a crap about those people? I'm sure it's just a massive coincidence that the five companies with the biggest contracts in Iraq were also the five main companies that funded Bush's presedential campaign...
> Even if there is no WMD, the whole fuss over it has been kickstarted
> by the Anti-war lobby who, in the face of the bl£eding obvious -
> that liberating the Iraqi people could only be done by force - are now
> desperate for a new route to criticise the whole campaign because they
> look rather stupid criticising the invasion now so many Iraqi's are
> glad Saddam was gone. Ever since the statues toppled they've looked
> for something, and now they have it.
The whole fuss about WMD kickstarted by the anti-war lobby? The reason we went to war in the first place was because Iraq posed a real terrorist threat to the US and UK, with chemical and biological weapons. A few days into the war and it was "Our main objective is to free the Iraqi citizens". Now it's revealed that they even knew it was bullshite all along.
They needed to relate the war to us so that we would support it - once they'd done that they dropped it. But what makes me wonder is that if the real objective was to free the Iraqis, why the hell was it done? You really think Bush gives a crap about those people? I'm sure it's just a massive coincidence that the five companies with the biggest contracts in Iraq were also the five main companies that funded Bush's presedential campaign...
Oopsy daisy... http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/ wolfowitz.vanity.fair/index.html
Rather esay to create a story with selective editing eh? Maybe the Guardian should check what the story is based on before running with it, I only knew about this a few hours ago, but I haven't printed a story about it...
Rather esay to create a story with selective editing eh? Maybe the Guardian should check what the story is based on before running with it, I only knew about this a few hours ago, but I haven't printed a story about it...
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.
Belldandy wrote:
> bl£eding
Bleeding?
Why?
> bl£eding
Bleeding?
Why?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Page: