The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I wil be as snide as I like as long as mindless armchair hawks continue to do nowt but blow hot air on forums.
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)
I can't believe 1 person can be so literate yet so utterly stupid
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)
I can't believe 1 person can be so literate yet so utterly stupid
Goatboy wrote:
> Ssshh, dont point out things that Bush hasn't said otherwise he
> ignores the topic and talks about how nice Pinochet is because he
> helped in the Falklands.
Ha ! At least I knew what I was talking about with reference to the Falklands...unlike you. Be as snide as you like but I don't see you or any of your ilk coming up with any alternative plan to what happened this year in Iraq...
> Ssshh, dont point out things that Bush hasn't said otherwise he
> ignores the topic and talks about how nice Pinochet is because he
> helped in the Falklands.
Ha ! At least I knew what I was talking about with reference to the Falklands...unlike you. Be as snide as you like but I don't see you or any of your ilk coming up with any alternative plan to what happened this year in Iraq...
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.
> 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.
Anyone who gets that moneyt will most probably have his head blown off the next day by a fanatic.
Unbeliever wrote:
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?
--
Yes indeed. But you forget, using US approved line-of-thinking means that any and ever Arab is a terrorist. As can be seen in quite a lot of movies called True Lies etc.
Oh, and let's have a gander here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3027234.stm
"No links to Al-Queda"
I expect a lengthy, misinformed and red-faced reply about pacifists, commies and loving Hussein in 5...4...3...2
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?
--
Yes indeed. But you forget, using US approved line-of-thinking means that any and ever Arab is a terrorist. As can be seen in quite a lot of movies called True Lies etc.
Oh, and let's have a gander here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3027234.stm
"No links to Al-Queda"
I expect a lengthy, misinformed and red-faced reply about pacifists, commies and loving Hussein in 5...4...3...2
Ssshh, dont point out things that Bush hasn't said otherwise he ignores the topic and talks about how nice Pinochet is because he helped in the Falklands.
Practical Magic wrote:
> As it is they are attacking soft targets, Jack Straw and co flew into
> the area in Blackhawks, and no one tried anything against them. The
> resistance is a problem but not an unsolvable one. Already the
> Americans are deploying elements of Delta Force into Baghdad to track
> down and snuff out the resistance forces. These are small groups of
> people who have everything to lose in the new Iraq, so it's hardly
> surprising they resist the allied forces.
I'm not so sure. I think the majority of Iraqis would welcome regime change and "freedom" but not the continued occupation of the US soldiers. The US should have taken out the regime and then got out. All this feeble posturing about "rebuilding Iraq" is a blatant smokescreen for continued occupation and getting a foothold in the middle east.
> As it is they are attacking soft targets, Jack Straw and co flew into
> the area in Blackhawks, and no one tried anything against them. The
> resistance is a problem but not an unsolvable one. Already the
> Americans are deploying elements of Delta Force into Baghdad to track
> down and snuff out the resistance forces. These are small groups of
> people who have everything to lose in the new Iraq, so it's hardly
> surprising they resist the allied forces.
I'm not so sure. I think the majority of Iraqis would welcome regime change and "freedom" but not the continued occupation of the US soldiers. The US should have taken out the regime and then got out. All this feeble posturing about "rebuilding Iraq" is a blatant smokescreen for continued occupation and getting a foothold in the middle east.
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?
> 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?
Practical Magic wrote:
Blah blah blah blah
http://www.buymybook.co.uk/irony_detector.htm
Blah blah blah blah
http://www.buymybook.co.uk/irony_detector.htm
cookie monster wrote:
> I would agree with you if it wasnt for the fact that soldiers are
> still being killed in ambushes and the like.
They're attacking soft targets. Name me one war in history where, after victory was declared, hostilities ended everywhere instantly. Hasn't happened once, ever.
As it is they are attacking soft targets, Jack Straw and co flew into the area in Blackhawks, and no one tried anything against them. The resistance is a problem but not an unsolvable one. Already the Americans are deploying elements of Delta Force into Baghdad to track down and snuff out the resistance forces. These are small groups of people who have everything to lose in the new Iraq, so it's hardly surprising they resist the allied forces.
American public opinion still supports the war, as does that in the UK and elsewhere, despite the losses. 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.
> I would agree with you if it wasnt for the fact that soldiers are
> still being killed in ambushes and the like.
They're attacking soft targets. Name me one war in history where, after victory was declared, hostilities ended everywhere instantly. Hasn't happened once, ever.
As it is they are attacking soft targets, Jack Straw and co flew into the area in Blackhawks, and no one tried anything against them. The resistance is a problem but not an unsolvable one. Already the Americans are deploying elements of Delta Force into Baghdad to track down and snuff out the resistance forces. These are small groups of people who have everything to lose in the new Iraq, so it's hardly surprising they resist the allied forces.
American public opinion still supports the war, as does that in the UK and elsewhere, despite the losses. 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.
Page: