The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The military authorities in Iraq are offering a $25m reward for information leading to the capture of former president Saddam Hussein.
The top US official in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said $15 million was being offered for similar information about Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusay.
"I have certainly not forgotten Saddam Hussein and his sons," Mr Bremer said in a message broadcast to the Iraqi people.
"They may or may not still be alive. Until we know for sure, their names will continue to cast a shadow of fear over this country."
The whereabouts of Saddam Hussein has been the source of much speculation since Baghdad fell to US-led forces on 9 April.
The $25m matches the reward the US is offering for information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader missing since the fall of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan early in 2002.
----------------
So. Now they admit they failed to kill him. Earlier this year they insisted he was dead, now they ask for information on his whereabouts. So the whole war was bungled, and there are still no weapons of mass destruction. A few days ago the most people yet had been killed in the whole war.
The top US official in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said $15 million was being offered for similar information about Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusay.
"I have certainly not forgotten Saddam Hussein and his sons," Mr Bremer said in a message broadcast to the Iraqi people.
"They may or may not still be alive. Until we know for sure, their names will continue to cast a shadow of fear over this country."
The whereabouts of Saddam Hussein has been the source of much speculation since Baghdad fell to US-led forces on 9 April.
The $25m matches the reward the US is offering for information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader missing since the fall of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan early in 2002.
----------------
So. Now they admit they failed to kill him. Earlier this year they insisted he was dead, now they ask for information on his whereabouts. So the whole war was bungled, and there are still no weapons of mass destruction. A few days ago the most people yet had been killed in the whole war.
Page:
Skorp1on wrote:
> I'm trying to say that there are lots of things that America has done,
> that are almost as bad as Husseins crimes. Aamerica conveniantly
> forgets about its own atrocities.
True but it's not like they're the only ones. We and the rest of Europe have done many things which we've conveniently swept under the carpet never to mention again. It's not like they're the only ones.
> I'm trying to say that there are lots of things that America has done,
> that are almost as bad as Husseins crimes. Aamerica conveniantly
> forgets about its own atrocities.
True but it's not like they're the only ones. We and the rest of Europe have done many things which we've conveniently swept under the carpet never to mention again. It's not like they're the only ones.
Skarra wrote:
> Funny, you don't criticise them for their
> ignorance and narrow mindedness. Ah, that's right, they share your
> perspective, why would you!
Yeah, why would I? What kind of idiot tries to rip apart someone who agrees with him?!
And for the record, I've had perfectly civil debates with Garin, Black Glove and others who were pro-war. The only person here whom I give genuine grief to is Bell.
> Funny, you don't criticise them for their
> ignorance and narrow mindedness. Ah, that's right, they share your
> perspective, why would you!
Yeah, why would I? What kind of idiot tries to rip apart someone who agrees with him?!
And for the record, I've had perfectly civil debates with Garin, Black Glove and others who were pro-war. The only person here whom I give genuine grief to is Bell.
Skarra wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> 1) The end doesn't justify the means.
>
> Given the right means, why not?
It was more of a general statement, and it's pretty self explanatory. Just because Saddam is now out of power (we think :)) that doesn't make the way we got him out of power okay.
> 2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough,
> and
> they weren't the real reasons anyway.
>
> What would have been good enough? I mean, hundreds of people were
> tortured a day, and enough people to fill a van were killed. Saddam
> had used Chemical weapons in the past. If Tony Blair had stood up and
> said, he's done all of this, now let's get him out, would you have
> said ok then???
This is exactly what I'm talking about - you cannot justify the war by saying "There were mass graves!", because that is not why we went to war. The reason given, by Blair and Bush, was that Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and were posing a great threat to the Western way of life. So if they wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was torturing his own people, they should have said so.
But, as has become pretty clear, it was about neither of these things.
> Also, i never said you liked Saddam and all that. I've no doubt you
> dislike the dude.
I was also replying to Belldandy in my posts - this part wasn't aimed at you.
> Also, i think we are informed enough to make the decision that the guy
> was from the seed of Satan. If you see TV footage of Halabja (the Kurd
> town he Gased), you'd be informed enough aswell.
I don't think we are. We see everything through a net of media and propaganda, all of which has to be checked by several parties before it is shown to us.
And I think Skorpion has a point - the US aren't exactly saintly, are they? Over the past few years they've been involved in "conflicts" with 52 different countries (not sure on this one, I think 52 is right but I'll try and check it).
> Blank wrote:
> 1) The end doesn't justify the means.
>
> Given the right means, why not?
It was more of a general statement, and it's pretty self explanatory. Just because Saddam is now out of power (we think :)) that doesn't make the way we got him out of power okay.
> 2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough,
> and
> they weren't the real reasons anyway.
>
> What would have been good enough? I mean, hundreds of people were
> tortured a day, and enough people to fill a van were killed. Saddam
> had used Chemical weapons in the past. If Tony Blair had stood up and
> said, he's done all of this, now let's get him out, would you have
> said ok then???
This is exactly what I'm talking about - you cannot justify the war by saying "There were mass graves!", because that is not why we went to war. The reason given, by Blair and Bush, was that Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda and were posing a great threat to the Western way of life. So if they wanted to get rid of Saddam because he was torturing his own people, they should have said so.
But, as has become pretty clear, it was about neither of these things.
> Also, i never said you liked Saddam and all that. I've no doubt you
> dislike the dude.
I was also replying to Belldandy in my posts - this part wasn't aimed at you.
> Also, i think we are informed enough to make the decision that the guy
> was from the seed of Satan. If you see TV footage of Halabja (the Kurd
> town he Gased), you'd be informed enough aswell.
I don't think we are. We see everything through a net of media and propaganda, all of which has to be checked by several parties before it is shown to us.
And I think Skorpion has a point - the US aren't exactly saintly, are they? Over the past few years they've been involved in "conflicts" with 52 different countries (not sure on this one, I think 52 is right but I'll try and check it).
I'm trying to say that there are lots of things that America has done, that are almost as bad as Husseins crimes. Aamerica conveniantly forgets about its own atrocities.
When they napalmed the civilians, that was no different to gasing a town. If you see the photos of people running down the street, trying to pull their skin off because it's burning them inside out, you'll know what I mean.
What about it?
Yeah, but then look at the Americans napalming the vietnamese, not that i'm disagreeing with you about Saddam
Blank wrote:
> 1) The end doesn't justify the means.
Given the right means, why not?
> 2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough, and
> they weren't the real reasons anyway.
What would have been good enough? I mean, hundreds of people were tortured a day, and enough people to fill a van were killed. Saddam had used Chemical weapons in the past. If Tony Blair had stood up and said, he's done all of this, now let's get him out, would you have said ok then???
Also, i never said you liked Saddam and all that. I've no doubt you dislike the dude.
Also, i think we are informed enough to make the decision that the guy was from the seed of Satan. If you see TV footage of Halabja (the Kurd town he Gased), you'd be informed enough aswell.
> 1) The end doesn't justify the means.
Given the right means, why not?
> 2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough, and
> they weren't the real reasons anyway.
What would have been good enough? I mean, hundreds of people were tortured a day, and enough people to fill a van were killed. Saddam had used Chemical weapons in the past. If Tony Blair had stood up and said, he's done all of this, now let's get him out, would you have said ok then???
Also, i never said you liked Saddam and all that. I've no doubt you dislike the dude.
Also, i think we are informed enough to make the decision that the guy was from the seed of Satan. If you see TV footage of Halabja (the Kurd town he Gased), you'd be informed enough aswell.
Belldandy, you don't have to be a psychic to see that "You could see it like this" is different from "Well I see it like this". All you have to do is READ.
And to Skarra - I do not claim that the war has no positive effects. I've never pretended to be, or actually been, a supporter of Saddam. I agree with Belldandy and others among the forums that he was not overall a nice man (although to be honest, I think none of us are really informed enough to make bold statements about that). Anyway, my point is this:
1) The end doesn't justify the means.
2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough, and they weren't the real reasons anyway.
And to Skarra - I do not claim that the war has no positive effects. I've never pretended to be, or actually been, a supporter of Saddam. I agree with Belldandy and others among the forums that he was not overall a nice man (although to be honest, I think none of us are really informed enough to make bold statements about that). Anyway, my point is this:
1) The end doesn't justify the means.
2) The reasons given for going to war were not nearly good enough, and they weren't the real reasons anyway.
You have a go at him for ignoring stuff, yet if he or i bring up a valid point, i.e. a positive effect of the war, they are just shouted down, ignored, and all but dismissed by those who refuse to see the positive. Or at very least, they don't want to accept there is a lot of possitive from the war. Funny, you don't criticise them for their ignorance and narrow mindedness. Ah, that's right, they share your perspective, why would you!
Page: