The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Oh yeah, and 9/11 can't have happened any earlier BECAUSE IT'S THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER! IT'S NAME IS A DATE FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
Practical Magic wrote:
> "mindless armchair hawks", the
> implied meaning that the person opposing you does nothing but sit
> around in a chair all day
...
> "mindless armchair hawks", the
> implied meaning that the person opposing you does nothing but sit
> around in a chair all day
...
Skarra wrote:
> Not true. Don't get me wrong, i think the war was justified. Anyway,
> the US didn't carry on to Saddam City in 1991 because they wouldn't
> have had Arab support. The Arab nations supported liberating an Arab
> nation, but not invading another. That's why they didn't carry on. If
> they did, then 9/11 probably would have happened a lot sooner that it
> did, and with a lot more people supporting it.
Er, yes true. UN Resolution 678 stated that;
"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Resolution 660 ONLY demanded that Iraqi forces were removed to the point they occupied in August 1990.
The USA, UK, Australia, Ireland and others, all pressed for a different wording in Resolution 678 but were blocked by Russia and China's threats of veto and other interference from doing so.
And I won't even bother addressing your 9/11 comments because they're based on as much fact as your Gulf War ones.
> Not true. Don't get me wrong, i think the war was justified. Anyway,
> the US didn't carry on to Saddam City in 1991 because they wouldn't
> have had Arab support. The Arab nations supported liberating an Arab
> nation, but not invading another. That's why they didn't carry on. If
> they did, then 9/11 probably would have happened a lot sooner that it
> did, and with a lot more people supporting it.
Er, yes true. UN Resolution 678 stated that;
"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Resolution 660 ONLY demanded that Iraqi forces were removed to the point they occupied in August 1990.
The USA, UK, Australia, Ireland and others, all pressed for a different wording in Resolution 678 but were blocked by Russia and China's threats of veto and other interference from doing so.
And I won't even bother addressing your 9/11 comments because they're based on as much fact as your Gulf War ones.
Goatboy wrote:
> I wil be as snide as I like as long as mindless armchair hawks
> continue to do nowt but blow hot air on forums.
This is the central reasoning behind you, and Light's, ideas. Anyone with the same ones as yourself are most obviously the enlightened few who somehow know the eternal truths behind everything, and everyone else is seen by you as the mindless rabble engaged in, to use your own terminology which I believe originates with Chomsky's work, groupthink - the idea that the media and government control the actions and thoughts of the general public via various means and that they use this to their own advantages which are inherently nefarious.
This stereotyping of those who hold different views to yourself is apparent in your response; "mindless armchair hawks", the implied meaning that the person opposing you does nothing but sit around in a chair all day, knows nothing, and is eager for war. This follows that media's own recent decided upon division which persecuted those political figures who wished action to be taken in Iraq, hence those who had little reasoning other than "we can't use force" were labelled 'Doves' with the imagery and meanings that implies, whilst those who dared to suggest backing up the UN's own resolutions with force were labelled 'Hawks', again with the negative imagery that implies in contract to the nice little 'Doves'.
> I particularly enjoyed your "looks like they're innocent"
> comment from 1 link about Campbell and Straw almost a week before
> verdicts have been delivered (this monday fyi)
But your beloved BBC first reported that very story...and further refers to it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news /politics/3040324.stm , notice in particular the quote:
"Mr Illsley took the unusual step last weekend of publicly saying he expected his colleagues to clear Mr Campbell of any wrongdoing"
Furthermore, on that same page questions are asked of the credibility and integrity of the FAC, yet these are only being asked and mentioned because the FAC is expected to declare that there was no mass plot by Downing Street to falsify anything. Had the FAC declared this was the case then those questions would not be being asked.
> I can't believe 1 person can be so literate yet so utterly stupid
Heh, see above.
> I wil be as snide as I like as long as mindless armchair hawks
> continue to do nowt but blow hot air on forums.
This is the central reasoning behind you, and Light's, ideas. Anyone with the same ones as yourself are most obviously the enlightened few who somehow know the eternal truths behind everything, and everyone else is seen by you as the mindless rabble engaged in, to use your own terminology which I believe originates with Chomsky's work, groupthink - the idea that the media and government control the actions and thoughts of the general public via various means and that they use this to their own advantages which are inherently nefarious.
This stereotyping of those who hold different views to yourself is apparent in your response; "mindless armchair hawks", the implied meaning that the person opposing you does nothing but sit around in a chair all day, knows nothing, and is eager for war. This follows that media's own recent decided upon division which persecuted those political figures who wished action to be taken in Iraq, hence those who had little reasoning other than "we can't use force" were labelled 'Doves' with the imagery and meanings that implies, whilst those who dared to suggest backing up the UN's own resolutions with force were labelled 'Hawks', again with the negative imagery that implies in contract to the nice little 'Doves'.
> I particularly enjoyed your "looks like they're innocent"
> comment from 1 link about Campbell and Straw almost a week before
> verdicts have been delivered (this monday fyi)
But your beloved BBC first reported that very story...and further refers to it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news /politics/3040324.stm , notice in particular the quote:
"Mr Illsley took the unusual step last weekend of publicly saying he expected his colleagues to clear Mr Campbell of any wrongdoing"
Furthermore, on that same page questions are asked of the credibility and integrity of the FAC, yet these are only being asked and mentioned because the FAC is expected to declare that there was no mass plot by Downing Street to falsify anything. Had the FAC declared this was the case then those questions would not be being asked.
> I can't believe 1 person can be so literate yet so utterly stupid
Heh, see above.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> In 1991 we abandoned Iraq and look where that led us to...9/11 and
> the
>
> invasion of Iraq. No one is going anywhere this time.
>
> That's totally untrue. To say Iraq carried out 9/11 is shocking. It
> was proved to be Bin Laden, remember? And didn't the US bomb
> Afghanistan because of this very reason?
>
> One of the primary reasons for Osama Bin Laden's rise to prominence in
> the mid 1990's was the continued presence of US troops stationed in
> Saudi Arabia. This was one of the main facts which allowed him to
> recruit many Saudi's to AL Queda. Why oh why were the US Troops there
> ? Because Saddam was still in Iraq. Now, with Saddam out of power the
> US troops are leaving Saudi Arabia for good.
>
> Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was only needed because the
> UN refused in it's almighty brilliance, to let the US take out
> Saddam's regime in 1991, and the fact we had to withdraw from the
> Iraqi border areas was the start of the run up to the invasion last
> year.
Not true. Don't get me wrong, i think the war was justified. Anyway, the US didn't carry on to Saddam City in 1991 because they wouldn't have had Arab support. The Arab nations supported liberating an Arab nation, but not invading another. That's why they didn't carry on. If they did, then 9/11 probably would have happened a lot sooner that it did, and with a lot more people supporting it.
> Unbeliever wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> In 1991 we abandoned Iraq and look where that led us to...9/11 and
> the
>
> invasion of Iraq. No one is going anywhere this time.
>
> That's totally untrue. To say Iraq carried out 9/11 is shocking. It
> was proved to be Bin Laden, remember? And didn't the US bomb
> Afghanistan because of this very reason?
>
> One of the primary reasons for Osama Bin Laden's rise to prominence in
> the mid 1990's was the continued presence of US troops stationed in
> Saudi Arabia. This was one of the main facts which allowed him to
> recruit many Saudi's to AL Queda. Why oh why were the US Troops there
> ? Because Saddam was still in Iraq. Now, with Saddam out of power the
> US troops are leaving Saudi Arabia for good.
>
> Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was only needed because the
> UN refused in it's almighty brilliance, to let the US take out
> Saddam's regime in 1991, and the fact we had to withdraw from the
> Iraqi border areas was the start of the run up to the invasion last
> year.
Not true. Don't get me wrong, i think the war was justified. Anyway, the US didn't carry on to Saddam City in 1991 because they wouldn't have had Arab support. The Arab nations supported liberating an Arab nation, but not invading another. That's why they didn't carry on. If they did, then 9/11 probably would have happened a lot sooner that it did, and with a lot more people supporting it.
And furthermore, four post in repsonse ? Wow, you like really care.
Ooh yes, we all know how accurate BBC reporting is don't we ?
Practical Magic wrote:
> American public opinion still supports the war, as does that in the UK
> and elsewhere, despite the losses.
----
I can't resist, sorry:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3039996.stm
"In the most recent USA Today/Gallup poll, only a slim majority of 56% thought that the post-war situation in Iraq was going well, compared to 86% just after President Bush declared major combat fighting over in early May.
And only 56% said that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, as compared to 73% in the middle of April as combat began."
Sorry? Why yes, it does appear like you make statements based on zero facts, evidence or back-up.
You are George W Bush, AICM 9/11 cuddly toy.
> American public opinion still supports the war, as does that in the UK
> and elsewhere, despite the losses.
----
I can't resist, sorry:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3039996.stm
"In the most recent USA Today/Gallup poll, only a slim majority of 56% thought that the post-war situation in Iraq was going well, compared to 86% just after President Bush declared major combat fighting over in early May.
And only 56% said that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, as compared to 73% in the middle of April as combat began."
Sorry? Why yes, it does appear like you make statements based on zero facts, evidence or back-up.
You are George W Bush, AICM 9/11 cuddly toy.
Oh, and before I go for lunch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3043340.stm
Read it. Then read your "Pinochet was ok" and then go back and read all of your "supporting Saddam" comments because I opposed the illegal invasion of another country using lies, false evidence and hysteria in the media to whip up hatred and fear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3043340.stm
Read it. Then read your "Pinochet was ok" and then go back and read all of your "supporting Saddam" comments because I opposed the illegal invasion of another country using lies, false evidence and hysteria in the media to whip up hatred and fear.
Besides mini-Thatcher - googling and pasting the info from the 1st site doesn't mean you know anything, it means you search for sites to support your version without offering any personal input as to why you think that.
And I'm not going to get drawn into another bitchslapping that results in you slinking off when you have no links to wave.
As you did with your utterly contemptible link from CNN to try and vindicate your "Iraq has Nukes!!!1" idea, only to be roundly proved wrong over three or four posts.
Which you declined to comment on, strangely.
Now, don't forget to
(a) Use the "I know you but what am I" response
(b) Post-quote and try to deflect from your obvious stupidity
(c) Accuse me of being a bully
(d) Ignore any comments that you cannot google an argument for
*pats head*
Had your Freedom Fries this morning? Oh, and your "support is still strong in the USA" comment - I take it you didn't listen to Radio 4 this morning whilst reading The Daily Mail and employing smooth, mechanical strokes to your Patriot Pants Missile?
And I'm not going to get drawn into another bitchslapping that results in you slinking off when you have no links to wave.
As you did with your utterly contemptible link from CNN to try and vindicate your "Iraq has Nukes!!!1" idea, only to be roundly proved wrong over three or four posts.
Which you declined to comment on, strangely.
Now, don't forget to
(a) Use the "I know you but what am I" response
(b) Post-quote and try to deflect from your obvious stupidity
(c) Accuse me of being a bully
(d) Ignore any comments that you cannot google an argument for
*pats head*
Had your Freedom Fries this morning? Oh, and your "support is still strong in the USA" comment - I take it you didn't listen to Radio 4 this morning whilst reading The Daily Mail and employing smooth, mechanical strokes to your Patriot Pants Missile?
Page: