The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Practical Magic wrote:
>
> Hey Blank, stop trying to imitate them, you're not good at it. I say
> again, you criticise policies but can offer no alternative.
Yeah, cos no-one else would ever genuinely criticise such a widely respected and objective commentator such as yourself...no, it MUST be because they're just copying Goatboy and I, right?
Coward; you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that people have good reason to disagree with you, because you're too gutless to admit the possiblity you're wrong.
For the record; yes, this post was not much more than commenting on your cowardice and no, it didn't add much to the debate. So if you want to respond to it and use it as an excuse to ignore the more valid points raised by LL and Blank...well, more gutlessness on your part.
>
> Hey Blank, stop trying to imitate them, you're not good at it. I say
> again, you criticise policies but can offer no alternative.
Yeah, cos no-one else would ever genuinely criticise such a widely respected and objective commentator such as yourself...no, it MUST be because they're just copying Goatboy and I, right?
Coward; you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that people have good reason to disagree with you, because you're too gutless to admit the possiblity you're wrong.
For the record; yes, this post was not much more than commenting on your cowardice and no, it didn't add much to the debate. So if you want to respond to it and use it as an excuse to ignore the more valid points raised by LL and Blank...well, more gutlessness on your part.
OK Bell, OK...
Think of it as a feather in your cap, because I just don't care anymore.
I make the points, I give you my two cents, trying to get a debate going. But alas, you refuse these invitations and prefer to ridicule my points with hypotheticals.
Well, I give up. You win. I bail out. I won't bother anymore if all I get is ridicule over and over just because I don't agree with your points.
From here on, I shall not post in this thread, or anything ese where you do this to anyone else.
Think of it as a feather in your cap, because I just don't care anymore.
I make the points, I give you my two cents, trying to get a debate going. But alas, you refuse these invitations and prefer to ridicule my points with hypotheticals.
Well, I give up. You win. I bail out. I won't bother anymore if all I get is ridicule over and over just because I don't agree with your points.
From here on, I shall not post in this thread, or anything ese where you do this to anyone else.
Blank wrote:
> Erm.....no, I don't, because it's not true. Once again, you confuse
> anti-war with pro-Saddam. And what's more you didn't even read what I
> put. I said "Or you could see it like this" - did I ever say
> it was my own view?
You did not make it clear, as others including myself do, that it was not. If you don't make it clear then don't expect anyone to be psychic.
> So, after missing the point you (hmm...the word "again"
> springs to mind) you go on to rant about all possibilities of a regime
> change. I don't care if you don't take me seriously, because me and
> quite a large number of others have realised that you can very rarely
> be taken seriously on anything. Not because of what your view is, but
> because you never back it up and tell why you believe it. You avoid
> topics strenuously until you can muster a response that (to your mind)
> is not completely laughable, under the standard umbrella of "Why
> should I put any effort into a chat forum? I've been to uni and
> written some well good stuff, you know".
>
> It's no wonder that you're so widely criticised.
Hey Blank, stop trying to imitate them, you're not good at it. I say again, you criticise policies but can offer no alternative.
Come back, with something other than crap, tell us all how you would suggest the dislodging of an urban enemy without ground conflict, cause less casualties, and I'll start to care. Until that time I see you as the kid who could never get in the gang.
Now, whilst were here lets turn to LL Cool T, who is wondering why, if Iraq had WMD, it did not use them, amongst other things, but lets address this point first.
Now, LL, do you know what the policy of any Nato alliance member is regarding the use of a weapon of mass destruction against them or their troops ? Do you remember the shiver through the spine that anyone with an ounce of military knowledge felt when, post 9/11, the US administration labelled the use of the hijacked airliners as a weapon of mass destruction ?
Well I'll tell you. Anyone who used WMD on a Nato member can expect it right back at them, in spades. You use one, we'll turn your country into a graveyard until you surrender. It's a defensive policy and the justification for the Western powers and others for having nuclear weapons. We also have command and control systems in place to make sure that no one person can initiate an attack, unlike in Iraq where Saddam held total sway. In the first Gulf War Iraq was, via a third party, informed that should it use any WMD on any nation in the coalition, or Israel, then it could expect the same back, without mercy. I have no doubt the same message was relayed this time.
Now, let's turn to LL's fantasy of a UN force. Were you awake ? the USA, UK and Spain spent over six months pushing for that, only to be blocked by the very people who had everything to lose by seeing the fall of Saddam - Russia and China. At the same time France and Germany ignited anti-american feeling to their advantage to create a rift in the the UN. There was never going to be a UN Force so get real.
And now his claim weapon's inspectors have now found nothing. That's pretty weird, because the UN have not sent the team yet and await invitation. You do know the size of Iraq, right ? You happily let the UN spend 12 years messing around, but expect the coalition to restore peace, fix everything, find the weapons, and everything else, in two months ? Again, get real.
Ultimately we went in, at great risk, and destroyed a brutal regime, and removed a threat to world security, and whatsmore we did so in a way which saved as many Iraqi civilian and military lives as possible. The tactic of heading straight for the head, Baghdad, saved countless lives.
No amount of criticism can diminish this victory, no amount of sneering, snide remarks or appearance of 'knowing'. We destroyed a regime that killed at will, that killed tens of thousands of its own people, that launched missiles at Israel, that kills POW's, that killed foreign nationals, that regarded the Geneva convention as little more than toilet roll, that had no respect for human rights, that harboured terrorists and did nothing to stop them, that funded suicide bombers for the Palestinian cause. All this can be verified if you actually searched the web instead of making it up as you go along from asumptions.
Yet you criticise it. You don't care. For once the good guys rolled in and did what they said they'd do and are now proving that they are there to stay until they are no longer needed. You were wrong about action, now that is past you need something else to criticise, so it's this. I'll say it again, get real.
> Erm.....no, I don't, because it's not true. Once again, you confuse
> anti-war with pro-Saddam. And what's more you didn't even read what I
> put. I said "Or you could see it like this" - did I ever say
> it was my own view?
You did not make it clear, as others including myself do, that it was not. If you don't make it clear then don't expect anyone to be psychic.
> So, after missing the point you (hmm...the word "again"
> springs to mind) you go on to rant about all possibilities of a regime
> change. I don't care if you don't take me seriously, because me and
> quite a large number of others have realised that you can very rarely
> be taken seriously on anything. Not because of what your view is, but
> because you never back it up and tell why you believe it. You avoid
> topics strenuously until you can muster a response that (to your mind)
> is not completely laughable, under the standard umbrella of "Why
> should I put any effort into a chat forum? I've been to uni and
> written some well good stuff, you know".
>
> It's no wonder that you're so widely criticised.
Hey Blank, stop trying to imitate them, you're not good at it. I say again, you criticise policies but can offer no alternative.
Come back, with something other than crap, tell us all how you would suggest the dislodging of an urban enemy without ground conflict, cause less casualties, and I'll start to care. Until that time I see you as the kid who could never get in the gang.
Now, whilst were here lets turn to LL Cool T, who is wondering why, if Iraq had WMD, it did not use them, amongst other things, but lets address this point first.
Now, LL, do you know what the policy of any Nato alliance member is regarding the use of a weapon of mass destruction against them or their troops ? Do you remember the shiver through the spine that anyone with an ounce of military knowledge felt when, post 9/11, the US administration labelled the use of the hijacked airliners as a weapon of mass destruction ?
Well I'll tell you. Anyone who used WMD on a Nato member can expect it right back at them, in spades. You use one, we'll turn your country into a graveyard until you surrender. It's a defensive policy and the justification for the Western powers and others for having nuclear weapons. We also have command and control systems in place to make sure that no one person can initiate an attack, unlike in Iraq where Saddam held total sway. In the first Gulf War Iraq was, via a third party, informed that should it use any WMD on any nation in the coalition, or Israel, then it could expect the same back, without mercy. I have no doubt the same message was relayed this time.
Now, let's turn to LL's fantasy of a UN force. Were you awake ? the USA, UK and Spain spent over six months pushing for that, only to be blocked by the very people who had everything to lose by seeing the fall of Saddam - Russia and China. At the same time France and Germany ignited anti-american feeling to their advantage to create a rift in the the UN. There was never going to be a UN Force so get real.
And now his claim weapon's inspectors have now found nothing. That's pretty weird, because the UN have not sent the team yet and await invitation. You do know the size of Iraq, right ? You happily let the UN spend 12 years messing around, but expect the coalition to restore peace, fix everything, find the weapons, and everything else, in two months ? Again, get real.
Ultimately we went in, at great risk, and destroyed a brutal regime, and removed a threat to world security, and whatsmore we did so in a way which saved as many Iraqi civilian and military lives as possible. The tactic of heading straight for the head, Baghdad, saved countless lives.
No amount of criticism can diminish this victory, no amount of sneering, snide remarks or appearance of 'knowing'. We destroyed a regime that killed at will, that killed tens of thousands of its own people, that launched missiles at Israel, that kills POW's, that killed foreign nationals, that regarded the Geneva convention as little more than toilet roll, that had no respect for human rights, that harboured terrorists and did nothing to stop them, that funded suicide bombers for the Palestinian cause. All this can be verified if you actually searched the web instead of making it up as you go along from asumptions.
Yet you criticise it. You don't care. For once the good guys rolled in and did what they said they'd do and are now proving that they are there to stay until they are no longer needed. You were wrong about action, now that is past you need something else to criticise, so it's this. I'll say it again, get real.
Practical Magic wrote:
> you do know you're
> defending the actions of a man whose people mainly had problems during
> his regime getting clean water anyway, despite the fact every palace
> of his had clean water swimming pools and fountains in abundance ?
Erm.....no, I don't, because it's not true. Once again, you confuse anti-war with pro-Saddam. And what's more you didn't even read what I put. I said "Or you could see it like this" - did I ever say it was my own view?
So, after missing the point you (hmm...the word "again" springs to mind) you go on to rant about all possibilities of a regime change. I don't care if you don't take me seriously, because me and quite a large number of others have realised that you can very rarely be taken seriously on anything. Not because of what your view is, but because you never back it up and tell why you believe it. You avoid topics strenuously until you can muster a response that (to your mind) is not completely laughable, under the standard umbrella of "Why should I put any effort into a chat forum? I've been to uni and written some well good stuff, you know".
It's no wonder that you're so widely criticised.
> you do know you're
> defending the actions of a man whose people mainly had problems during
> his regime getting clean water anyway, despite the fact every palace
> of his had clean water swimming pools and fountains in abundance ?
Erm.....no, I don't, because it's not true. Once again, you confuse anti-war with pro-Saddam. And what's more you didn't even read what I put. I said "Or you could see it like this" - did I ever say it was my own view?
So, after missing the point you (hmm...the word "again" springs to mind) you go on to rant about all possibilities of a regime change. I don't care if you don't take me seriously, because me and quite a large number of others have realised that you can very rarely be taken seriously on anything. Not because of what your view is, but because you never back it up and tell why you believe it. You avoid topics strenuously until you can muster a response that (to your mind) is not completely laughable, under the standard umbrella of "Why should I put any effort into a chat forum? I've been to uni and written some well good stuff, you know".
It's no wonder that you're so widely criticised.
Skarra wrote:
> Ok, here we go.
>
> You forget the Saddam loyalists are mostly responsible for the power
> failure ect...
And why did they turn off the power? Because of the bombs raining down, and the fact that we had attacked them pre-emptively. It would have been much less safer for them to leave it on, but they turned it off because they had been attakced.
> You say we've taken out law and order. You don't mention the lack of
> justice, oh, yeah, THERE WAS NONE. But, given time, there will be.
> After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, i'm pretty sure Iraq won't be
> don't quickly either.
But why did we go in there? To put that in place. And the speed at which progress is being made simply isn't good enough. They are no longer at solely at risk from the Ba'athists, who are currently even targeting the Iraqi people to rebel against the Americans, but there are looters and thieves that the Americans aren't controlling at all. This doesn't even bring into account the huge amount of historical arhcitects and art that has been destroyed in the country (latest estimates put the figure at 10% of the entire country's artefacts have been looted or destroyed).
> I can't comment on the US troops raiding homes, but i've seen and
> heard nothing of this.
It was on the news programmes yesterday, and I saw it on Sky News.
> You seem well informed on the status of the weapons in Iraq, tell me,
> when did your service to MI 6 end? You say "suppose", well
> "suppose" he hid the weapons, perhaps he's got them with him
> today. Or "suppose" he shipped them out to Saudi. We just
> don't know, but people like you just "suppose" they arn't
> there. But "suppose" they were, and the US wasn't so blunt?
> Think about that!
The whole point is that we shouldn't have to "suppose" about any part of the war, let alone the sole reason that was officially given for going to war! If our leaders of the Coalition were so very confident that there are weapons in Iraq, why didn't we give the UN inspectors those extra few months that they asked for? Because they weren't confident that the inspectors would be kind enough to plant the weapons for us? Why did we think that blasting into the country would be more profound than allowing trained and qualified inspectors to find these weapons?
The other thing that gets me is that if Iraq *did* have these weapons of mass destruction, why did they not use any at all against the Coalition. The stakes were at their highest - the entire country was at risk. What better situation to use these WMDs? Where were these waves of chemical and biological attacks? Why were none used at all? Because they were hidden too well? When else was Saddam going to use them? Would he try another gas attack? Honestly? With America itching for a proper reason to go to war? I don't think so.
> You say no progress has been made with law and order, have you been to
> Iraq today, i'm pretty sure it's a lot better than it was just after
> the war. Granted, it might not be as safe as when Saddam was in
> charge, but that's because the people don't fear the US troops taking
> them away and torturing them! And Saddam loyalists are responsible for
> the troubles with water and power. Also, a fair chunk of Iraq now has
> power and water, more so than before the war.
What law and order is there? You condemn me for making claims and then you do exactly the same. What police forces are there? Massively reduced ones from Saddam's time, with no real power at all, that's what. The US can't do anything about it, and nothing is being actively done to provide any sort of fair judicial system, which is what we were told the Iraqis would have.
> You say the Iraqi's don't want all we've given them. If we hold a
> national vote, can you really say most of them would rather go back to
> the way it was under Saddam???
That's a real shame. Making rash assumptions, that is. You ignore the very real possibility (at least, not any more) of having had a UN-led team of forces to take Iraq from Saddam. A UN team would have had so much more political muscle behind it, allowing it access to many more troops and the regeneration of Iraq could have taken place so much quicker.
And please don't try to feed me this "France would never have joined" rubbish. France didn't help for a perfectly good reason: they had no evidence to trust. "What evidence would they have trusted?" I hear you holler. Well, how about the UN weapons inspectors? Should the inspectors have finished their investigations by finding a huge range of weapons caches, then France would have had no justification for not going to war. France is not politically big enough to resist such overwhelming evidence, or the will of Britain, Amercia, the Coalition and, crucially, all the other countries that would have offered military help. In the face of all that, France would have had to join. Then Russia wuold have been under too great a pressure, although still could have managed to resist. If you're going to destroy international law, at least have a majority on the Permanent Council.
Should the weapons inspectors have found nothing in Iraq, as is now the case, then there still would have been no justification for this war. At least then it would all have been much clearer for us all.
> Ok, here we go.
>
> You forget the Saddam loyalists are mostly responsible for the power
> failure ect...
And why did they turn off the power? Because of the bombs raining down, and the fact that we had attacked them pre-emptively. It would have been much less safer for them to leave it on, but they turned it off because they had been attakced.
> You say we've taken out law and order. You don't mention the lack of
> justice, oh, yeah, THERE WAS NONE. But, given time, there will be.
> After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, i'm pretty sure Iraq won't be
> don't quickly either.
But why did we go in there? To put that in place. And the speed at which progress is being made simply isn't good enough. They are no longer at solely at risk from the Ba'athists, who are currently even targeting the Iraqi people to rebel against the Americans, but there are looters and thieves that the Americans aren't controlling at all. This doesn't even bring into account the huge amount of historical arhcitects and art that has been destroyed in the country (latest estimates put the figure at 10% of the entire country's artefacts have been looted or destroyed).
> I can't comment on the US troops raiding homes, but i've seen and
> heard nothing of this.
It was on the news programmes yesterday, and I saw it on Sky News.
> You seem well informed on the status of the weapons in Iraq, tell me,
> when did your service to MI 6 end? You say "suppose", well
> "suppose" he hid the weapons, perhaps he's got them with him
> today. Or "suppose" he shipped them out to Saudi. We just
> don't know, but people like you just "suppose" they arn't
> there. But "suppose" they were, and the US wasn't so blunt?
> Think about that!
The whole point is that we shouldn't have to "suppose" about any part of the war, let alone the sole reason that was officially given for going to war! If our leaders of the Coalition were so very confident that there are weapons in Iraq, why didn't we give the UN inspectors those extra few months that they asked for? Because they weren't confident that the inspectors would be kind enough to plant the weapons for us? Why did we think that blasting into the country would be more profound than allowing trained and qualified inspectors to find these weapons?
The other thing that gets me is that if Iraq *did* have these weapons of mass destruction, why did they not use any at all against the Coalition. The stakes were at their highest - the entire country was at risk. What better situation to use these WMDs? Where were these waves of chemical and biological attacks? Why were none used at all? Because they were hidden too well? When else was Saddam going to use them? Would he try another gas attack? Honestly? With America itching for a proper reason to go to war? I don't think so.
> You say no progress has been made with law and order, have you been to
> Iraq today, i'm pretty sure it's a lot better than it was just after
> the war. Granted, it might not be as safe as when Saddam was in
> charge, but that's because the people don't fear the US troops taking
> them away and torturing them! And Saddam loyalists are responsible for
> the troubles with water and power. Also, a fair chunk of Iraq now has
> power and water, more so than before the war.
What law and order is there? You condemn me for making claims and then you do exactly the same. What police forces are there? Massively reduced ones from Saddam's time, with no real power at all, that's what. The US can't do anything about it, and nothing is being actively done to provide any sort of fair judicial system, which is what we were told the Iraqis would have.
> You say the Iraqi's don't want all we've given them. If we hold a
> national vote, can you really say most of them would rather go back to
> the way it was under Saddam???
That's a real shame. Making rash assumptions, that is. You ignore the very real possibility (at least, not any more) of having had a UN-led team of forces to take Iraq from Saddam. A UN team would have had so much more political muscle behind it, allowing it access to many more troops and the regeneration of Iraq could have taken place so much quicker.
And please don't try to feed me this "France would never have joined" rubbish. France didn't help for a perfectly good reason: they had no evidence to trust. "What evidence would they have trusted?" I hear you holler. Well, how about the UN weapons inspectors? Should the inspectors have finished their investigations by finding a huge range of weapons caches, then France would have had no justification for not going to war. France is not politically big enough to resist such overwhelming evidence, or the will of Britain, Amercia, the Coalition and, crucially, all the other countries that would have offered military help. In the face of all that, France would have had to join. Then Russia wuold have been under too great a pressure, although still could have managed to resist. If you're going to destroy international law, at least have a majority on the Permanent Council.
Should the weapons inspectors have found nothing in Iraq, as is now the case, then there still would have been no justification for this war. At least then it would all have been much clearer for us all.
Blank wrote:
> You could see it like that Belldandy, or you could see it like he
> turned off the electricity in an attempt to reduce casualties by the
> bombs. Whereas we dropped bombs, and went it with tanks and machine
> guns. Hardly safe for the Iraqis.
You mean the estimated tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed since 1991 by their own government ? Didn't think so... seeing as a GPS guided bomb doesn't give a fig if it's night or day, and can hit the target in all but a nuclear explosion, turning off the power was certainly NOT to hinder the air campaign but an act of spite. you do know you're defending the actions of a man whose people mainly had problems during his regime getting clean water anyway, despite the fact every palace of his had clean water swimming pools and fountains in abundance ? You did read of the millions of US dollars recovered from Iraq from regime members property, at a time when Saddam wanted eased restrictions on the embargo around Iraq, claiming there was not enough foreign capital in the county ? As usual you're one of those who like to criticise but offer no alternative.
Tell me, how do you dislodge an enemy in an urban environment and do it any safer than how the allies did ? There isn't one, ironically the alternatives to actually putting troops on the ground are;
1) Siege - obviously far greater damage to civilians
2) Nuclear weapons - no explanation needed
3) Chemical weapons - see above
4) Biological weapons - see above
1) was possible, 2) insane, 2) and 4) complicated by our lack of offensive weaponry.
I await your strategy.
> Oh, and if you can't come up with what you deem to be a stupendously
> witty come back post, then do your usual and don't bother at all.
Actually, if you bothered to read I made a pint, when talking to Light, that I don't bother with wit et al, wit rarely achieves anything whereas information does.
Tell me how you would suggest dislodging an enemy in an urban environment cuasing less damage than the strategy used in Iraq and I'll take you seriously. Until then...well
> You could see it like that Belldandy, or you could see it like he
> turned off the electricity in an attempt to reduce casualties by the
> bombs. Whereas we dropped bombs, and went it with tanks and machine
> guns. Hardly safe for the Iraqis.
You mean the estimated tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed since 1991 by their own government ? Didn't think so... seeing as a GPS guided bomb doesn't give a fig if it's night or day, and can hit the target in all but a nuclear explosion, turning off the power was certainly NOT to hinder the air campaign but an act of spite. you do know you're defending the actions of a man whose people mainly had problems during his regime getting clean water anyway, despite the fact every palace of his had clean water swimming pools and fountains in abundance ? You did read of the millions of US dollars recovered from Iraq from regime members property, at a time when Saddam wanted eased restrictions on the embargo around Iraq, claiming there was not enough foreign capital in the county ? As usual you're one of those who like to criticise but offer no alternative.
Tell me, how do you dislodge an enemy in an urban environment and do it any safer than how the allies did ? There isn't one, ironically the alternatives to actually putting troops on the ground are;
1) Siege - obviously far greater damage to civilians
2) Nuclear weapons - no explanation needed
3) Chemical weapons - see above
4) Biological weapons - see above
1) was possible, 2) insane, 2) and 4) complicated by our lack of offensive weaponry.
I await your strategy.
> Oh, and if you can't come up with what you deem to be a stupendously
> witty come back post, then do your usual and don't bother at all.
Actually, if you bothered to read I made a pint, when talking to Light, that I don't bother with wit et al, wit rarely achieves anything whereas information does.
Tell me how you would suggest dislodging an enemy in an urban environment cuasing less damage than the strategy used in Iraq and I'll take you seriously. Until then...well
Ok, here we go.
You forget the Saddam loyalists are mostly responsible for the power failure ect...
You say we've taken out law and order. You don't mention the lack of justice, oh, yeah, THERE WAS NONE. But, given time, there will be. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, i'm pretty sure Iraq won't be don't quickly either.
I can't comment on the US troops raiding homes, but i've seen and heard nothing of this.
You seem well informed on the status of the weapons in Iraq, tell me, when did your service to MI 6 end? You say "suppose", well "suppose" he hid the weapons, perhaps he's got them with him today. Or "suppose" he shipped them out to Saudi. We just don't know, but people like you just "suppose" they arn't there. But "suppose" they were, and the US wasn't so blunt? Think about that!
You say no progress has been made with law and order, have you been to Iraq today, i'm pretty sure it's a lot better than it was just after the war. Granted, it might not be as safe as when Saddam was in charge, but that's because the people don't fear the US troops taking them away and torturing them! And Saddam loyalists are responsible for the troubles with water and power. Also, a fair chunk of Iraq now has power and water, more so than before the war.
You say the Iraqi's don't want all we've given them. If we hold a national vote, can you really say most of them would rather go back to the way it was under Saddam???
You forget the Saddam loyalists are mostly responsible for the power failure ect...
You say we've taken out law and order. You don't mention the lack of justice, oh, yeah, THERE WAS NONE. But, given time, there will be. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day, i'm pretty sure Iraq won't be don't quickly either.
I can't comment on the US troops raiding homes, but i've seen and heard nothing of this.
You seem well informed on the status of the weapons in Iraq, tell me, when did your service to MI 6 end? You say "suppose", well "suppose" he hid the weapons, perhaps he's got them with him today. Or "suppose" he shipped them out to Saudi. We just don't know, but people like you just "suppose" they arn't there. But "suppose" they were, and the US wasn't so blunt? Think about that!
You say no progress has been made with law and order, have you been to Iraq today, i'm pretty sure it's a lot better than it was just after the war. Granted, it might not be as safe as when Saddam was in charge, but that's because the people don't fear the US troops taking them away and torturing them! And Saddam loyalists are responsible for the troubles with water and power. Also, a fair chunk of Iraq now has power and water, more so than before the war.
You say the Iraqi's don't want all we've given them. If we hold a national vote, can you really say most of them would rather go back to the way it was under Saddam???
You could see it like that Belldandy, or you could see it like he turned off the electricity in an attempt to reduce casualties by the bombs. Whereas we dropped bombs, and went it with tanks and machine guns. Hardly safe for the Iraqis.
Oh, and if you can't come up with what you deem to be a stupendously witty come back post, then do your usual and don't bother at all.
Oh, and if you can't come up with what you deem to be a stupendously witty come back post, then do your usual and don't bother at all.
Goatboy wrote:
> Does that hold true for others as well?
Circumstantial. In his case using an article from such a clearly anti-western source is somewhat, to me, stupid in terms of backing his argument. No source is unbiased, but there are degrees of bias, and I wouldn't take any seriously which had topics such as the one that came from - which I listed earlier.
> Does that hold true for others as well?
Circumstantial. In his case using an article from such a clearly anti-western source is somewhat, to me, stupid in terms of backing his argument. No source is unbiased, but there are degrees of bias, and I wouldn't take any seriously which had topics such as the one that came from - which I listed earlier.
So, according to LL they want, to quote; "electricity, clean water and safety"
Right, who, before even the first bomb fell, purposely switched off power to the southern areas of Iraq ? Hmmm...Saddam.
Okay, who, stupidly believing it would make a difference, cut Baghdad's power supply for the most part as the bombing continued ? Hmmm...Saddam.
Now, strange as this may seem water cleaning plants don't just magically purify water, they need electricity. So, let's see, no clean water because of lack of power is to blame on...Saddam.
Safety ? Hmm...number of people falsely taken away by Saddam's men for speaking their mind ? 0. Number of people executed for disagreeing with Saddam ? Er...0. And so on.
I'm not pretending it's a perfect country, but the fact is you claim to be concerned for the people's welfare, yet seem to argue the war - which removed the biggest human welfare threat in Iraq, namely Saddam and Co - was not justified.
Make up your mind eh ?
Right, who, before even the first bomb fell, purposely switched off power to the southern areas of Iraq ? Hmmm...Saddam.
Okay, who, stupidly believing it would make a difference, cut Baghdad's power supply for the most part as the bombing continued ? Hmmm...Saddam.
Now, strange as this may seem water cleaning plants don't just magically purify water, they need electricity. So, let's see, no clean water because of lack of power is to blame on...Saddam.
Safety ? Hmm...number of people falsely taken away by Saddam's men for speaking their mind ? 0. Number of people executed for disagreeing with Saddam ? Er...0. And so on.
I'm not pretending it's a perfect country, but the fact is you claim to be concerned for the people's welfare, yet seem to argue the war - which removed the biggest human welfare threat in Iraq, namely Saddam and Co - was not justified.
Make up your mind eh ?
Page: